The test of any theory is whether or not it provides answers to basic questions. Some well-meaning but misguided people think evolution is a reasonable theory to explain man’s questions about the universe. Evolution is not a good theory—it is just a pagan religion masquerading as science.

Now please answer these questions. .

1. Where did the space for the universe come from?
2. Where did matter come from?
3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?
4. How did matter get so perfectly organized?
5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?
6. When, where, why, and how did life come from dead matter?
7. When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?
8. With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?
9. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?)
10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)
11. Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?
12. Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?
13. When, where, why, and how did:
a) Single-celled plants become multicelled? (Where are the two- and three celled intermediates?)
b) Single-celled animals evolve?
c) Fish change to amphibians?
d) Amphibians change to reptiles?
e) Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!) How did the intermediate forms live?
14. When, where, why, how, and from what did:
a) Whales evolve?
b) Sea horses evolve?
c) Bats evolve?
d) Eyes evolve?
e) Ears evolve?
f) Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?
15. Which evolved first (how, and how long, did it work without the others)?
a) The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body’s resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)?
b) The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?
c) The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs?
d) DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?
e) The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose?
f) The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?
g) The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones?
h) The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system?
i) The immune system or the need for it?

:crazy:

eric1589

02-21-2009, 11:47 PM

come on.

we all know that evolution is satans plan to deny god...
it just took satan thousands of years to come up with the idea and infect smart people with it.
:lol2:

Marino613

02-22-2009, 02:19 PM

For one resource that is anti-ceationist, but lists many differing webistes for people who want to see this issue from different sides check out http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/other-links.html

Dolphan7

03-25-2009, 11:50 AM

Gotta love the product of our wonderful university system in this country.....Higher Education.

Talk about ignoring facts........

Just tell me how we got here (life on earth) and how you can create something out of nothing (the universe), and I will listen.

ABrownLamp

03-25-2009, 11:59 AM

Gotta love the product of our wonderful university system in this country.....Higher Education.

Talk about ignoring facts........

Just tell me how we got here (life on earth) and how you can create something out of nothing (the universe), and I will listen.

As far as a discussion about how life began, it's kind of silly to have with religious. Not just becuase science at this stage can only speculate at this point, but becuase even with vast amounts of evidence and undeniable proof, for the religious, those explanations do not matter. So why ask for answers from the other side when all you do is dismiss them anyway

Tetragrammaton

03-25-2009, 12:07 PM

Just tell me how we got here (life on earth) and how you can create something out of nothing (the universe), and I will listen.

For the most part, the nonbeliever does not have the gall to suggest that they know things they could not possibly know.

Dolphan7

03-25-2009, 12:37 PM

For the most part, the nonbeliever does not have the gall to suggest that they know things they could not possibly know.
What?

Does not science do the same thing?

There is no way science has figured out how we got here and how to get mater from non-matter, yet......if you read any literature, talk to any science guy, read any textbook, they preach it is a known fact, undeniable fact I have heard recently.

They have the gall to suggest they know things they could not possibly know.

Talk about faith. Brother!

What you are telling me is that my faith, which is as strong as it gets, and my knowledge of the the world, history, science........that there is no way I can know for sure that my beliefs are real?

Brother, I would never seek to even insinuate that what you believe in is hogwash. It is what you believe in, and I respect that. I may not agree with it, but you have the freedom to make up your own mind on issues, and if you feel that you don't know the answers, and are agnostic, that is fine I hope you some day find the answers, and I hope those answers point to God, but........that doesn't mean you can stand there and tell someone else that they can't know what they believe in. Just as much as you believe you don't have the answers, I believe 100% that I do. And you are in no position to tell me that there is no way I could know this, when you yourself don't know. Kinda makes you sound hypocritical in a way. And I know you aren't.

Dolphan7

03-25-2009, 12:52 PM

I dont understand your higher education comment - higher education is correlated with many quality life factors including better health, more money, less divorce, lower rate of institutionalization, better jobs etc- thats an undeniable fact, so I'm not sure what youre suggesting I'm ignorant of.Higher Education is spitting out enlightened intolerant anti-religious elites that have this belief in science and deny the Creator of everything around them. That is the ignorance I am referring to.

As far as a discussion about how life began, it's kind of silly to have with religious. Not just because science at this stage can only speculate at this point, but because even with vast amounts of evidence and undeniable proof, for the religious, those explanations do not matter. So why ask for answers from the other side when all you do is dismiss them anywayI am trying to reconcile these two statements:

science at this stage can only speculate

with vast amounts of evidence and undeniable proof

Sounds contradictory.

This is the problem I have with Origin Science, not science in general.

There are no facts. It is all merely speculation and theory. Yet when I see students of our wonderful higher education preach that it is factual and proven...it just confirms to me that the greater science community teaches it as fact.

Science should have a 360 degree view of all issues of study, yet.....when it comes to Origin Science, it seems that the objectivity view has been reduced to only the view of the blackboard at the front of the class, that has instructions from the scientific elites, stating what you must think and believe...and those students are learning with one hand tied behind their back...handicapped from the start, ever denying the existence of the Creator of everything they see around them....and the students march out of each classroom nodding their head in oblivious approval saying "Yes it is true, it is proven, it is fact...."

That is the ignorance I refer to.

ABrownLamp

03-25-2009, 02:53 PM

Higher Education is spitting out enlightened intolerant anti-religious elites that have this belief in science and deny the Creator of everything around them. That is the ignorance I am referring to.

I am trying to reconcile these two statements:

science at this stage can only speculate

with vast amounts of evidence and undeniable proof

Sounds contradictory.

This is the problem I have with Origin Science, not science in general.

There are no facts. It is all merely speculation and theory. Yet when I see students of our wonderful higher education preach that it is factual and proven...it just confirms to me that the greater science community teaches it as fact.

Science should have a 360 degree view of all issues of study, yet.....when it comes to Origin Science, it seems that the objectivity view has been reduced to only the view of the blackboard at the front of the class, that has instructions from the scientific elites, stating what you must think and believe...and those students are learning with one hand tied behind their back...handicapped from the start, ever denying the existence of the Creator of everything they see around them....and the students march out of each classroom nodding their head in oblivious approval saying "Yes it is true, it is proven, it is fact...."

That is the ignorance I refer to.

Higher education has nothing to do with being intolerant of religion. Youve just been indoctrinated to think that it should. I referenced higher education as an example of something with a much higher correlation to leading a positive, higher quality of life than simply being a religious person. I'm not clear as to whether or not you dispute this fact at this point.

AS far as the quotes of mine above, those are two separate statements describing two separate ideas. Science can only speculate at this point how everything came to be. Science doesnt suppose it has the answer to everything. However, there are undeniable facts about how nature works that biblical literalists especially just simply ignore or pretend dont exist because it doesnt square with their beliefs.

What also appears to be a recurring theme in modern day conservativism and especially religion is the idea that university professors are teaching their students about religion in non religious classes. Or that science classes are filled with anti religious propoganda. I've been through 4 years of college and many years of grad school and this cant be farther from the truth. It's a classroom with a teacher in the front just like you had in high school. No different. There are jocks, nerds, emo kids, blacks, whites, etc. Theres no pushing of liberal values. You go to class. You take notes. You study. The only difference btwn classes in high school and college is that the courses are harder and mommy and daddy cant force you to study anymore. Thats it.

Tetragrammaton

03-26-2009, 01:37 PM

What?

Does not science do the same thing?

There is no way science has figured out how we got here and how to get mater from non-matter, yet......if you read any literature, talk to any science guy, read any textbook, they preach it is a known fact, undeniable fact I have heard recently.

They have the gall to suggest they know things they could not possibly know.

Talk about faith. Brother!

What you are telling me is that my faith, which is as strong as it gets, and my knowledge of the the world, history, science........that there is no way I can know for sure that my beliefs are real?

Brother, I would never seek to even insinuate that what you believe in is hogwash. It is what you believe in, and I respect that. I may not agree with it, but you have the freedom to make up your own mind on issues, and if you feel that you don't know the answers, and are agnostic, that is fine I hope you some day find the answers, and I hope those answers point to God, but........that doesn't mean you can stand there and tell someone else that they can't know what they believe in. Just as much as you believe you don't have the answers, I believe 100% that I do. And you are in no position to tell me that there is no way I could know this, when you yourself don't know. Kinda makes you sound hypocritical in a way. And I know you aren't.

But don't you see the problem with your post? You say that you know, then you say I have a right to "believe" whatever I want. If you know for sure, then my beliefs are false, correct?

You believe 100%, yes, but you do not know. If this was a court of law, you cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt. That is the idea of knowing, at least for me.

We base our worldview on a series of beliefs, and this goes beyond just religion. It may be such a part of your life that it feels like fact, but you cannot prove it. Should we take your word that you know? Give me an hour and I could find a Jew, a Muslim, and a Hindu who "knows". There is only one truth, so we can't all know.

Dolphan7

03-26-2009, 02:25 PM

But don't you see the problem with your post? You say that you know, then you say I have a right to "believe" whatever I want. If you know for sure, then my beliefs are false, correct?How can I say your belief is false, if you don't know what your belief is? You say you are agnostic, which means you don't know one way of the other. You are still searching for answer to confirm one or the other. I would say your belief is "incomplete", not false.

You believe 100%, yes, but you do not know. If this was a court of law, you cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt. That is the idea of knowing, at least for me.There you go again. You yourself don't know what you believe, yet you can make a statement like this that says I don't know what I believe in is true? Makes no sense. I know. With every fiber in my being, I know. At best you can only say "I don't understand how you know".

We base our worldview on a series of beliefs, and this goes beyond just religion. It may be such a part of your life that it feels like fact, but you cannot prove it. Should we take your word that you know? Give me an hour and I could find a Jew, a Muslim, and a Hindu who "knows". There is only one truth, so we can't all know.This is true - there is only one truth. Three people die and meet their creator, having different "truths".... only one will enter the gates.

Can I prove it? Well something or someone proved it to me...and billions of others, so it can be proven. Can it be proven in a court of law? I would be lacking in faith to say no, but I think it unrealistic and contrary to how God wants us to deliver His message. Remember......Jesus lived and breathed and performed miracle after miracle.....and they didn't believe Him, and they killed him....or so they thought. So many times it isn't the proof that people need, because the proof is there for those who search for it...but more a matter of pride - people don't want to give up their current beliefs, it would require change in their lives, and it would mean their whole belief system is false. It is a condition of their heart more than anything. When I pray for people, such as yourself and many others on this board, I don't pray for proof. I pray that God open your heart to His message, His calling, and if He can use me to help then I am ready.

I would love the challenge of proving God Jesus and the bible in a court of law. It will never happen but it makes for interesting conversation.

Dolphan7

03-26-2009, 09:56 PM

Higher education has nothing to do with being intolerant of religion. Youve just been indoctrinated to think that it should. I referenced higher education as an example of something with a much higher correlation to leading a positive, higher quality of life than simply being a religious person. I'm not clear as to whether or not you dispute this fact at this point.To be indoctrinated requires that some other source have exclusive influence on my thinking, without any possible alternative sources of opposing viewpoints allowed. So that isn't going to work here as I am a free thinker and rely on my own powers of observation and personal experiences. It is my personal observation and through personal encounters, some right here on this board, that our higher education system is anti-religious, and promotes a very heavy dose of anti-god science in the form of evolution. Many graduates come out of school with an Athiest or Agnostic mindset, to the tune of about 9 of every 10. This is just what I see. I don't think it is deliberately part of the curriculum, or the intent of most professors. It simply is what it is. The prevailing mindset in colleges as about as far from good religious beliefs and values as it can be.

AS far as the quotes of mine above, those are two separate statements describing two separate ideas. Science can only speculate at this point how everything came to be. Science doesnt suppose it has the answer to everything. However, there are undeniable facts about how nature works that biblical literalists especially just simply ignore or pretend dont exist because it doesnt square with their beliefs. Biblical literalists don't ignore or deny science, but they question it's predictions, and it's conclusions. We all have the same data. The data doesn't speak for itself. It requires interpretation. That interpretation is going to be biased toward whatever belief the scientist has. So when looking at the fossil record for instance, the evolutionist will look at it and say....millions of years ago this mass extinction took place...and a biblical creationist will look at it and say this massive death was caused by a global flood. The data suports both models, although one model appears to predict more accurately than the other, which would be the flood model. It isn't a knock against science, but science has it's limitiations. It is fantastic in the here and now. It works best when it can observe, replicate and duplicate. When it oversteps it's bounds is when it attempts to make solid conclusions on the past, that in has no way of proving, and calling it fact. This is where the bone of contention arises.

What also appears to be a recurring theme in modern day conservativism and especially religion is the idea that university professors are teaching their students about religion in non religious classes. Or that science classes are filled with anti religious propoganda. I've been through 4 years of college and many years of grad school and this cant be farther from the truth. It's a classroom with a teacher in the front just like you had in high school. No different. There are jocks, nerds, emo kids, blacks, whites, etc. Theres no pushing of liberal values. You go to class. You take notes. You study. The only difference btwn classes in high school and college is that the courses are harder and mommy and daddy cant force you to study anymore. Thats it.I understand what college is like. I went to college too you know. And I don't believe every class is underscored with this hidden agenda of anti-religious subtlety. I explained my thoughts above.

Jimi

03-26-2009, 11:23 PM

Just to throw in, im in college now and just in my first year i have already had two teachers who preached agendas. They were more poilitical than religious though.

Locke

03-26-2009, 11:48 PM

Just to throw in, im in college now and just in my first year i have already had two teachers who preached agendas. They were more poilitical than religious though.

5 years of university study and almost 1 year as a graduate student, and I can honestly say the only religion that I've discussed in the classroom is in the religion class I took as a core credit.

Are universities more liberal? Absolutely. That has nothing to do with people being pushed to the left, and more to do with the fact that the vast majority of young people are liberal, and universities are all young people.

If you take a political science class, of course you're going to get the views of the professor coming through. Its the same way that I knew going into my graduate studies that I would get a behaviorist slant on most everything since my mentor is a behaviorist psychologist. If you take a class with a clear divide on beliefs, you'd be a fool to think that a teacher even has the ability to be completely objective. We're all human, after all....

ABrownLamp

03-27-2009, 01:56 AM

To be indoctrinated requires that some other source have exclusive influence on my thinking, without any possible alternative sources of opposing viewpoints allowed. So that isn't going to work here as I am a free thinker and rely on my own powers of observation and personal experiences. It is my personal observation and through personal encounters, some right here on this board, that our higher education system is anti-religious, and promotes a very heavy dose of anti-god science in the form of evolution. Many graduates come out of school with an Athiest or Agnostic mindset, to the tune of about 9 of every 10. This is just what I see. I don't think it is deliberately part of the curriculum, or the intent of most professors. It simply is what it is. The prevailing mindset in colleges as about as far from good religious beliefs and values as it can be.

See this is what I'm talking about...you guys dont even bother to do any research. 9/10 graduates are atheist??? Show me where you get that data! You just make stuff up about students, what happens in a university setting and what is taught. You have no idea what you are talking about and your fake stats show your true colors.

Biblical literalists don't ignore or deny science, but they question it's predictions, and it's conclusions. We all have the same data. The data doesn't speak for itself. It requires interpretation. That interpretation is going to be biased toward whatever belief the scientist has. So when looking at the fossil record for instance, the evolutionist will look at it and say....millions of years ago this mass extinction took place...and a biblical creationist will look at it and say this massive death was caused by a global flood. The data suports both models, although one model appears to predict more accurately than the other, which would be the flood model. It isn't a knock against science, but science has it's limitiations. It is fantastic in the here and now. It works best when it can observe, replicate and duplicate. When it oversteps it's bounds is when it attempts to make solid conclusions on the past, that in has no way of proving, and calling it fact. This is where the bone of contention arises.

I understand what college is like. I went to college too you know. And I don't believe every class is underscored with this hidden agenda of anti-religious subtlety. I explained my thoughts above.

The data for a massive flood that covered the workd does not exist. There may have been a massive flood, but for it to cover the Earth would have made human life inhospitable on Earth. See, this is exactly why we have such a problem with your "interpretations" It's because they arent scientific explanations- theyre guesses that dont square with the facts. Science has determined that the earth and the many millions of fossils and rock within are billions of years old because they can run scientific tests. They can run carbon 14 tests...and to verify that they can run uranium and rubidium tests. And if that is debatable they run thalium tests...many many many differnet elements reproducing the exact same data about the age of an artifact. What do you have? Youve got the Bible. And if thats all you need, fine. But dont pretend to make scientific conclusions based on NO EXPERIMENTS!!! It makes you guys look silly. And then you send me to a site about "science against evolution" created by a man who isnt even a practicioner of science!!

Dolphan7

03-27-2009, 02:49 AM

See this is what I'm talking about...you guys dont even bother to do any research. 9/10 graduates are atheist??? Show me where you get that data! You just make stuff up about students, what happens in a university setting and what is taught. You have no idea what you are talking about and your fake stats show your true colors.
9 out of 10. That is "My" personal observation from people I have encountered. It isn't a study, or a poll. It is my observation. It isn't made up.

The data for a massive flood that covered the world does not exist.Sure it does. How do you think fossils are formed. By rapid submersion in water and soil. Look at all the dead animals and plants at a certain layer of the column, the Cambrian layer. This is seen the world over. Large deposits of whale bones on dry land, that hasn't had water for millions of years (using science dates). Seas shells on the tops of mountains. I could go on and on to show that there is plenty of evidence for a global flood, but....you wouldn't accept it, nor believe it....because you have a biased world view toward whatever science has told you to believe. I know. I understand. I was an Athiest and evolutionist for over 30 years of my life. I know the game.

There may have been a massive flood, but for it to cover the Earth would have made human life inhospitable on Earth.Um...Hello? That was the whole point of the biblical flood! To kill everything. It was definitely inhospitable, and any survivors would have had to float it out until the water receded, like on a raft...or a boat...or a giant ........ Ark!

See, this is exactly why we have such a problem with your "interpretations" It's because they arent scientific explanations- theyre guesses that dont square with the facts.The biblical model predicts very accurately what we see in the fossil record and in geological evidence of a flood.

Science has determined that the earth and the many millions of fossils and rock within are billions of years old because they can run scientific tests. They can run carbon 14 tests...and to verify that they can run uranium and rubidium tests. And if that is debatable they run thalium tests...many many many differnet elements reproducing the exact same data about the age of an artifact.Every test they run is full of assumptions, the tests are not consistant. There is no accurate way to date rocks and such. The best they can do is date living, or former living organisms, but only back to about 5500 years ago. After that it becomes unreliable. But hey...If I am wrong...I am still ok. It doesn't change anything for me. But understand that evolutionists require long time periods for their theory to work, in fact the demand it, so understand the motivation behind these aging techniques.

What do you have? Youve got the Bible. And if thats all you need, fine. But dont pretend to make scientific conclusions based on NO EXPERIMENTS!!! It makes you guys look silly. And then you send me to a site about "science against evolution" created by a man who isnt even a practicioner of science!!You should read some books. Many good scientific research is being conducted every year in support of creation science. You don't know of them because they aren't "allowed" to publish in the evolutionist controlled scientific world. But they publish books anyway.

D0-While Jones isn't a scientist? Hmmm....interesting, so shoot the messenger because the messsage isn't what one wants to hear. You should read some of his stuff. He absolutely tears evolution apart. But I know you won't. You have already found your reason to dismiss, so much for searching for truth.

Look ABL, how many times are we going to have this dance? Hmmm? Look there is nothing anyone can show you that will ever get your mind out of the evolutionist camp. You are firmly planted there. Talk about closed minded.

Now I ask again, if you can find one shred of any genetic material, or DNA, that is actually newly created and not simply re-arranged (adaptation) or mutated (deformed) or copied incorrectly (missing info)....that will prove evolution.....I would be very interested in looking at it. That's all you have to do. Don't bring examples of adaptation like peppered moths or bacteria. Don't bring mutated cells that grow extra wings. Don't bring people with missing genes that are resistant to disease. These are not evolution.

If it is so proven, then you should be able to find multiple studies and research showing this miraculous creation of matter, going against the first and second laws of thermodynamics.

Remember - Science has yet to figure out how the universe became something from nothing. Science has yet to figure out how life became something from nothing on this planet. But you seem to think that somehow life, after it somehow came into existance, evolved - creating new matter and new genetic material and new DNA, over and over and over again ad infinitum, defying all the odds multiple times, in fact defying the odds "everytime" it happened, trillion fold. You think that makes sense to you?

Yes I have my bible. And I thank God every day for that because with God it all makes perfect sense. God loves every one of us, even you ABL. He gave us life, hope, purpose, a future with him. He gave up his son for us so that we could connect with him. He gave you everything you see and hear and touch and taste and smell, you should give God a chance.

Just remember one thing...Eternity is a long, long time to be wrong my friend.

tylerdolphin

03-27-2009, 11:29 AM

Noah and company could have NEVER survived a post flood world. Common sense says so. What would they eat? How would they farm? They would be dead within a month.

What about the animals needing different climates? In another thread you told me that only one kind of bear or whatever would have been brought on board the ark. If thats the case, how can you explain the diversity of species that we see today (AND still deny evolution at that). Theres no way so many types of bears and insects and cats ect. could have adapted that fast.

Dolphan7

03-27-2009, 12:26 PM

Noah and company could have NEVER survived a post flood world. Common sense says so. What would they eat? How would they farm? They would be dead within a month.

What about the animals needing different climates? In another thread you told me that only one kind of bear or whatever would have been brought on board the ark. If thats the case, how can you explain the diversity of species that we see today (AND still deny evolution at that). Theres no way so many types of bears and insects and cats ect. could have adapted that fast.Why are you so convinced it can't happen? Where is the science supporting your theory? Are you qualified to make such a statement? You obviously don't understand Creation, or God.

Do the above responses sound familiar? This is what I hear from those supporting evolution. First thing out of the box....discredit the person. Next, if that doesn't work....well...they don't understand evolution. Next is...where is the science to support your position? And on and on and on.

Noah could have very easily survived a world wide flood, simply by stocking the ark with tons of food. Also he had animals to eat and live off of. All the animals weren't saved exclusively for post flood procreation. Next there would have had to be a time period of animal husbandry going on for the pro creating to kick start. Farming would be renewed once the water receded, seeds would have to have been saved in the ark. I am sure God thought of everything. Lastly there is God, something that science rejects from the get go, but never the less he is part of the solution and the success. You think God would put 8 people in an Ark, flood the world, and then simply leave them to die? Does that make sense?

One kind of bear, one "Kind". Genesis talks about "kinds". We don't exactly know what a kind is - somewhere between Family and Species. The genetic potential would have been available in these animals for the entire "kind" or Family or Genus or Species. Breeding would have brought out latent characteristics, and based on diet and environment, brought out even more latent characteristics. The DNA strand is a wondrous and marvelous thing. We are still in awe of it, and still learning more and more of it each year. DNA alone screams of design with intent. There is so much diversity in the gene pool. Look at dogs. We are still breeding new characteristics even to this day. The potential is there, and was there even more so back then.

If you ever get a chance, and are curious enough to question evolution, check out the research on cytochrome C by Michael Denton in his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. Here is a brief explanation of what he found.

http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v7i10f.htm

I know it's from the same guy you just read his entire web page, so maybe you already read this.

If an analysis of cytochrome C showed an evolutionary pathway from bacteria to man, you can be sure it would be widely published. Such a report has not been published because the molecular evidence is against evolution. It favors a designer.

ABrownLamp

03-27-2009, 07:49 PM

9 out of 10. That is "My" personal observation from people I have encountered. It isn't a study, or a poll. It is my observation. It isn't made up.

Sure it does. How do you think fossils are formed. By rapid submersion in water and soil. Look at all the dead animals and plants at a certain layer of the column, the Cambrian layer. This is seen the world over. Large deposits of whale bones on dry land, that hasn't had water for millions of years (using science dates). Seas shells on the tops of mountains. I could go on and on to show that there is plenty of evidence for a global flood, but....you wouldn't accept it, nor believe it....because you have a biased world view toward whatever science has told you to believe. I know. I understand. I was an Athiest and evolutionist for over 30 years of my life. I know the game.

Um...Hello? That was the whole point of the biblical flood! To kill everything. It was definitely inhospitable, and any survivors would have had to float it out until the water receded, like on a raft...or a boat...or a giant ........ Ark!

The biblical model predicts very accurately what we see in the fossil record and in geological evidence of a flood.

Every test they run is full of assumptions, the tests are not consistant. There is no accurate way to date rocks and such. The best they can do is date living, or former living organisms, but only back to about 5500 years ago. After that it becomes unreliable. But hey...If I am wrong...I am still ok. It doesn't change anything for me. But understand that evolutionists require long time periods for their theory to work, in fact the demand it, so understand the motivation behind these aging techniques.

You should read some books. Many good scientific research is being conducted every year in support of creation science. You don't know of them because they aren't "allowed" to publish in the evolutionist controlled scientific world. But they publish books anyway.

D0-While Jones isn't a scientist? Hmmm....interesting, so shoot the messenger because the messsage isn't what one wants to hear. You should read some of his stuff. He absolutely tears evolution apart. But I know you won't. You have already found your reason to dismiss, so much for searching for truth.

Look ABL, how many times are we going to have this dance? Hmmm? Look there is nothing anyone can show you that will ever get your mind out of the evolutionist camp. You are firmly planted there. Talk about closed minded.

Now I ask again, if you can find one shred of any genetic material, or DNA, that is actually newly created and not simply re-arranged (adaptation) or mutated (deformed) or copied incorrectly (missing info)....that will prove evolution.....I would be very interested in looking at it. That's all you have to do. Don't bring examples of adaptation like peppered moths or bacteria. Don't bring mutated cells that grow extra wings. Don't bring people with missing genes that are resistant to disease. These are not evolution.

If it is so proven, then you should be able to find multiple studies and research showing this miraculous creation of matter, going against the first and second laws of thermodynamics.

Remember - Science has yet to figure out how the universe became something from nothing. Science has yet to figure out how life became something from nothing on this planet. But you seem to think that somehow life, after it somehow came into existance, evolved - creating new matter and new genetic material and new DNA, over and over and over again ad infinitum, defying all the odds multiple times, in fact defying the odds "everytime" it happened, trillion fold. You think that makes sense to you?

Yes I have my bible. And I thank God every day for that because with God it all makes perfect sense. God loves every one of us, even you ABL. He gave us life, hope, purpose, a future with him. He gave up his son for us so that we could connect with him. He gave you everything you see and hear and touch and taste and smell, you should give God a chance.

Just remember one thing...Eternity is a long, long time to be wrong my friend.

Ok, so its your observation that 9/10 college grads are atheist but it has absolutely no basis in fact, just to clear things up.
As for how fossils are formed- there are many different ways, many of which dont require water. And none of which are evidence of a worldwide flood. If nature has preserved the fossils into stone, it really doesnt matter that they were sitting there for millions of years without water does it?

Ya, everyone died in the flood except Noah. Cause no one else had a boat that worked. That makes a lot of sense.

As far as not being able to date things correctly- I always wonder when I'm in museums and display after display date things as millions of year- I always wonder what Literalists think about or tell their children when you read that. Look, we've been over this before- there is no debate in the science world about the accuracy of the dating models. Certain elements are only accurate for a few thousand years, yes. But there are dozens of different elements science can use to date. The radioactive elements they use to date have half lives of many millions of years. See- yet another example of how you dont even bother to look things up.

As far as "scientific research" in creation science...name one experiment thats been done.

And to your last point, which I see is your latest gotcha game to science...first of all its science's job to determine what evolution means- becuase its a scientific term. As a layperson you dont get to change the rules and say what evolution encompasses. I mean, how do you sit there and say bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics isnt an example of evolution? How do you call an insect mutating to form wing isnt evolution? You just make up your own rules when it's convenient! What makes your statemt even worse is that - of course theres new information when bacteria becomes resistant!! How do you even come up with this stuff?

Eternity is a long time youre right- and you know what it's like to not belive because theres many many religions out there that you dont belive in. So I can say the exact same thing to you that you said to me.

Locke

03-27-2009, 08:34 PM

Noah could have very easily survived a world wide flood, simply by stocking the ark with tons of food. Also he had animals to eat and live off of. All the animals weren't saved exclusively for post flood procreation. Next there would have had to be a time period of animal husbandry going on for the pro creating to kick start. Farming would be renewed once the water receded, seeds would have to have been saved in the ark. I am sure God thought of everything. Lastly there is God, something that science rejects from the get go, but never the less he is part of the solution and the success. You think God would put 8 people in an Ark, flood the world, and then simply leave them to die? Does that make sense?

Here is where the biblical flood doesn't make sense to me. Where did all the water go? More importantly, where did it come from? The only source for water in a particular location is precipitation. If you're familiar with the hydrologic cycle, then my whole argument against it should make perfect sense. A massive amount of water like that couldn't have come out of nowhere, and then disappear into nowhere. If all that water evaporated, the amount of water needed to flood the entire world, then we'd live in a state of constant rain. It just doesn't make sense....

tylerdolphin

03-27-2009, 08:50 PM

Here is where the biblical flood doesn't make sense to me. Where did all the water go? More importantly, where did it come from? The only source for water in a particular location is precipitation. If you're familiar with the hydrologic cycle, then my whole argument against it should make perfect sense. A massive amount of water like that couldn't have come out of nowhere, and then disappear into nowhere. If all that water evaporated, the amount of water needed to flood the entire world, then we'd live in a state of constant rain. It just doesn't make sense....
Nothing about the flood makes sense. Seriously...a dude floated out a global flood on a wooden boat that he made with no modern tools. He carried two of every kind of animal. He obviously had to feed and clean up after every animal. This goes on for almost a year. Then they land on a mountain top (which was completely freaking underwater) and eat what? All the plants are dead. So are the fish. The salt water fish died because of too much fresh rain water. The fresh water fish died because there was now salt in the water. Assuming the land animals magically survive with no food, they still have to migrate to wherever they came from, even though the continents are split. Kangaroos swam home obviously. Rattlesnakes slithered across the frozen Bering Straits to America without freezing to death. THEN we have enough mutations in a span of a few thousand years to account for all the diversity in species and so forth, but evolution is impossible.

Dolphan7

03-28-2009, 01:38 AM

Here is where the biblical flood doesn't make sense to me. Where did all the water go? More importantly, where did it come from? The only source for water in a particular location is precipitation. If you're familiar with the hydrologic cycle, then my whole argument against it should make perfect sense. A massive amount of water like that couldn't have come out of nowhere, and then disappear into nowhere. If all that water evaporated, the amount of water needed to flood the entire world, then we'd live in a state of constant rain. It just doesn't make sense....In order to understand the biblical model, you must understand that the bible tells us that the earth was a different looking place pre-flood. Looking at today's earth, and thinking this is the earth of Noah is missing the point.

Here is a web site that gives a pretty good explanation of the biblical model.

Please read it. It answers many of the questions you guys have.

http://www.truthnet.org/creation/genesisflood/

Dolphan7

03-28-2009, 01:39 AM

Nothing about the flood makes sense. Seriously...a dude floated out a global flood on a wooden boat that he made with no modern tools. He carried two of every kind of animal. He obviously had to feed and clean up after every animal. This goes on for almost a year. Then they land on a mountain top (which was completely freaking underwater) and eat what? All the plants are dead. So are the fish. The salt water fish died because of too much fresh rain water. The fresh water fish died because there was now salt in the water. Assuming the land animals magically survive with no food, they still have to migrate to wherever they came from, even though the continents are split. Kangaroos swam home obviously. Rattlesnakes slithered across the frozen Bering Straits to America without freezing to death. THEN we have enough mutations in a span of a few thousand years to account for all the diversity in species and so forth, but evolution is impossible.
Please read the web site posted in #54. It answers your questions from a biblical model perspective.

garcia420

03-28-2009, 02:11 AM

besides the bible that was written by man, give me one example that their is a so called god. and please dont try and use the universe or man.

tylerdolphin

03-28-2009, 02:07 PM

Please read the web site posted in #54. It answers your questions from a biblical model perspective.
Again, there is no scientific evidence presented there. None. Just a guy trying to knock geology and radiometric dating and throwing around wild theories like the canopy theory. There is not a shred of proof for anything of the sort except one vague verse in Genesis. Thats all he does...say that (pick your theory) could be wrong, then throw out a guess as to what it could have been, without any real solid evidence.

It says that marine fossils on mountaintops are proof of the flood. That is flat out wrong. The mountains used to be underwater before they rose up by late tectonics. Besides, if the fossils were from a flood a few thousand years ago, how did they all fossilize? Fossilization is very rare. And the pressure argument does not work. They were only 20 feet underwater on the mountain tops. Yet marine creatures that died on these mountains magically fossilized.

And whats with them talking about a mass whale burial as proof of a flood? The whales didn't care. They live in the water. Why would a site where there are whale remains on land indicate a flood?

Same for the clams in on dry land in America. How did they get there to become fossilized? Obviously there used to be water. And a flood does not work because clams can't get that far inland during the flood that fast and still be fossilized in the catastrophic manner it described. That theory requires that the clams already BE on dry land in America. That means there was already water there before the flood. Which means the clams should have been OK anyway. Why would the flood kill them?

That site has a ton of lat out wrong information...if thats what you want to take as your facts, thats your right. Still, I think its ironic that you attack old earth theories and evolution based on having no evidence, then you turn around and post a link like this one.

If he has it figured out why doesn't he publish his work in a scientific journal? Because he would get eaten alive by real scientists.

Dolphan7

03-28-2009, 03:59 PM

Again, there is no scientific evidence presented there. None. Just a guy trying to knock geology and radiometric dating and throwing around wild theories like the canopy theory. There is not a shred of proof for anything of the sort except one vague verse in Genesis. Thats all he does...say that (pick your theory) could be wrong, then throw out a guess as to what it could have been, without any real solid evidence.

It says that marine fossils on mountaintops are proof of the flood. That is flat out wrong. The mountains used to be underwater before they rose up by late tectonics. Besides, if the fossils were from a flood a few thousand years ago, how did they all fossilize? Fossilization is very rare. And the pressure argument does not work. They were only 20 feet underwater on the mountain tops. Yet marine creatures that died on these mountains magically fossilized.

And whats with them talking about a mass whale burial as proof of a flood? The whales didn't care. They live in the water. Why would a site where there are whale remains on land indicate a flood?

Same for the clams in on dry land in America. How did they get there to become fossilized? Obviously there used to be water. And a flood does not work because clams can't get that far inland during the flood that fast and still be fossilized in the catastrophic manner it described. That theory requires that the clams already BE on dry land in America. That means there was already water there before the flood. Which means the clams should have been OK anyway. Why would the flood kill them?

That site has a ton of lat out wrong information...if thats what you want to take as your facts, thats your right. Still, I think its ironic that you attack old earth theories and evolution based on having no evidence, then you turn around and post a link like this one.

If he has it figured out why doesn't he publish his work in a scientific journal? Because he would get eaten alive by real scientists.Hey look I am not presenting this web sight to you as proven scientific fact, but to help you answer the questions you have. I am trying to give you an understanding of the biblical model for creation. You asked questions that this site provided the answers for from the biblical perspective.

What is science and scientific facts? What makes a qualified scientist?

A degreed individual in a respective field of study.

Have you ever tried to publish, get funding for, and get reviewed by peers any research that contradicts the prevailing wisdom of the "scientific elite"?

Do you think the publications of "Science", "Nature" or "Evolution" would ever print anything that knocks the evolutionist view point? Why would a creation science guy waste his time trying to do that?

What they do is write books, and publish their own research in their own journals.

Check it out. http://www.nwcreation.net/journalcreation.html

The research is there, you just won't find it in the "Evolution Times":lol:

Some prominent, and degreed, individuals who believe in the creationst model.

Also check out Dean Kenyon, who changed his position based on scientific evidence contrary to what he thought he believed.

Look I can't put in this forum all the evidence for creation. You need to do your own research. But don't think it isn't available.

Dolphan7

04-07-2009, 03:27 PM

The test of any theory is whether or not it provides answers to basic questions. Some well-meaning but misguided people think evolution is a reasonable theory to explain man’s questions about the universe. Evolution is not a good theory—it is just a pagan religion masquerading as science.

Now please answer these questions. .

1. Where did the space for the universe come from?
2. Where did matter come from?
3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?
4. How did matter get so perfectly organized?
5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?
6. When, where, why, and how did life come from dead matter?
7. When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?
8. With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?
9. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?)
10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)
11. Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?
12. Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?
13. When, where, why, and how did:
a) Single-celled plants become multicelled? (Where are the two- and three celled intermediates?)
b) Single-celled animals evolve?
c) Fish change to amphibians?
d) Amphibians change to reptiles?
e) Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!) How did the intermediate forms live?
14. When, where, why, how, and from what did:
a) Whales evolve?
b) Sea horses evolve?
c) Bats evolve?
d) Eyes evolve?
e) Ears evolve?
f) Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?
15. Which evolved first (how, and how long, did it work without the others)?
a) The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body’s resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)?
b) The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?
c) The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs?
d) DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?
e) The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose?
f) The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?
g) The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones?
h) The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system?
i) The immune system or the need for it?

:crazy:Pretty good summary and great post.:up:

There are so many questions that evolutionists are incapable of answering. It is easy to say "Hey evolution explains it and it happened".....but it requires sound answers to the hundreds of questions the theory poses to the intellect. On the surface it appears logical, but when you break it down like you did, it seems more illogical than anything we have ever seen. And we teach our kids this stuff?

Dolphan7

04-07-2009, 03:32 PM

come on.

we all know that evolution is satans plan to deny god...
it just took satan thousands of years to come up with the idea and infect smart people with it.
:lol2:Actually - I know you are being facetious here, but you actually hit the nail right on the head. Thank you!

2TI 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires,
2TI 4:4 and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths.

eric1589

04-07-2009, 05:22 PM

:lol2::lol2::lol2::lol2::lol2::lol2:

i cant get over the way you people think.

the theory of evolution is pagan religion masquerading as science?

seriously look into stuff instead of just repeating what an ignorant preacher told you.

and just because people do not know all the answers is not reason to denounce the entire study. you might as well say that dinosaurs are all a big conspiracy because we dont know everything about them and their time.

maybe some really smart people back in the old days knew how to create fake bones and they spent countless hours burying them in the hopes that long after they are dead, people will stumble onto their fake monsters.:crazy:

so yea. you guys are right. just because you dont understand something and cant figure out every single answer, to every single question, you should just denounce it all and believe in magic. :chuckle:

but then you must neglect to question that magic, or its source, or you will be right back where you started.:up:

why dont you look back a few hundred years and take a look at everything that religious institutions taught about the world BEFORE society became advanced enough to actually study stuff and find out the truth.

they used to teach that the earth was in the center of a giant crystal ball. kind of a funny semblance to the bubble of delusion a person gets in, with religion.:lol:

tylerdolphin

04-07-2009, 05:43 PM

A biologist would rip those questions to shreds. Im far from one, and even I can answer many of your questions.

Dolphan7

04-07-2009, 05:59 PM

A biologist would rip those questions to shreds. Im far from one, and even I can answer many of your questions.Actually no biologist would be able to do that Tyler. Evolutionists readily admit many of those questions are indeed still questions that have no answers, to their own dismay. But the hope is that one day the answers will be found, thus they keep looking and studying and researching....and get plenty of funding to do just that.

tylerdolphin

04-07-2009, 06:24 PM

The test of any theory is whether or not it provides answers to basic questions. Some well-meaning but misguided people think evolution is a reasonable theory to explain man’s questions about the universe. Evolution is not a good theory—it is just a pagan religion masquerading as science.

Now please answer these questions. .

1. Where did the space for the universe come from?
2. Where did matter come from?
3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?
4. How did matter get so perfectly organized?
5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?
6. When, where, why, and how did life come from dead matter? 1-6 all are irrelevant to evolution
7. When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself? They didnt "learn" to do it. Its something that happened. I cant explain it, but that does not invalidate evolution.
8. With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce? Another cell?
9. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?) Because the species who had no drive to reproduce or couldnt do so efficiently died out eons ago. And Im sure there were quite a few that died out this very way.
10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.) Horrible argument. Most mutations are bad or neutral, but it is undeniable that there are some positive mutaions that lead to improved varieties. Why do you think they have to make new flu shots every year?
11. Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor? Only if everything we know about science is dead wrong. Evolution and God are not mutually exclusive so maybe God gave us a kick-start and watched evolution unfold.
12. Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true? How would you explain the thousands of genes that are in our genetic code that are never activated? They code for all sorts of weird things that our ancestors had and are an obvious testament to our evolutionary past. Speciation has been observed anyhow so this is a moot point.
13. When, where, why, and how did:
a) Single-celled plants become multicelled? (Where are the two- and three celled intermediates?) No idea. Dont know enough at the cellular level to answer that.
b) Single-celled animals evolve? Probably through symbiosis with mitochondrial cells, but that is not proven yet.
c) Fish change to amphibians? Natural selection
d) Amphibians change to reptiles? ^
e) Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!) You dont have to believe the fossil record I guess...but there are intermediates you can look at. How did the intermediate forms live? Because evolution is a slow process. The animal didnt wake up one day and all of a sudden be totally different
14. When, where, why, how, and from what did:
a) Whales evolve? I cant remember off the top of my head, but it does have a vestigal hip, so I would guess some type of land animal.
b) Sea horses evolve? Thats kind of a random question. Im not an expert on sea horses, so...
c) Bats evolve? From one of our common ancestors, as evidenced by their "fingers" and thumb (vestigal structures)
d) Eyes evolve? Animals with a single light sensing cell had a survival advantage over animals that did not. This means they passed on their genes...then animals that had slight improvements came along, and the process repeats itself. Remember, this did not happen in 100 year...we are talking billions of years here.
e) Ears evolve? See above
f) Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?
15. Which evolved first (how, and how long, did it work without the others)? Nice strawman. You make it seem as though we had the digestive system as we know it with no circulatory system.Just look at more primitive animals...they are often missing entire systems while still having others. The systems they do have are less advanced that higher animals.
a) The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body’s resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)? These are silly questions if you understood evolution. Because organisms who didn't eat, couldnt find food and couldn't resist their own enzymes obviously died.
b) The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce? Animals with no drive to reproduce have long since died off. Do you have any idea how many species have died off because they could reproduce enough or at all?
c) The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs? Natural selection. It didnt happen one shot either...slowly over time.
d) DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts? All RNA is is a protein that codes for amino acids. The first cells probably had it. RNA if I am not mistaken has been created in labs using natural conditions. As for DNA, I am not sure, but I would be willing to bet that a molecular biologist could explain it rather well.
e) The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose? Natural selection. If you can digest a food source that is plentiful, theres a good chance you will survive.
f) The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants? Evolution at its finest. The plants with sweet substances like nectar to attract insects reproduced more.
g) The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones? Things work better with them. Same as eyes and ears that I answered above
h) The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system? see eyes, ears.
i) The immune system or the need for it? The need for it is pretty obvious. Its origins are pretty obvious as well is you consider natural selection.

:crazy:
Im not a scientist, but I answered as best as I could. Hopefully someone who is a little more qualified that me can correct me or elaborate on me if I made some poor points.

Dolphan7

04-07-2009, 07:43 PM

Wow you have managed to answer the hard questions evolutionists and old age abiogenesisists have grappled with for years....on a football message board.

Not.

Take number 10. This is where the rubber hits the road for Darwinian Macro Evolution to be true - at the DNA level, when the egg is fertilized and offspring begins to form. There is no new DNA or genetic information being created that has not already been created or stored in already existing DNA. Evolution falls on it's face right there. You can look and look, but you will find no evidence that this has ever happened, but more importantly - it can't happen. What you think you are seeing, and what they are telling you, is not new info being created, but old info being re-arranged, sometimes adding in latent characteristics into the organism that were already there. Darwin's finches, peppered moths et al. How do you think we continue to get new breeds of dog? It is because the potential is there in the DNA to begin with, and is bred into a breed by matching partners from differing breeds. We can see lots and lots of adaptation, but that isn't evolution. We never see an organism creating new DNA that allows it to jump into an entirely different Genus. Never. It is impossible.

Forget about all the many unanswered questions. Let's solve this riddle right now. Go find the evidence of new DNA being created that didn't exist before that allows an organism to jump not only species but genus as well.

Everything we see is as exactly as it has always been. The tree of evolution is most accurate at the ends. The middle is made up. We don't ever see anywhere anything that is in between the old organism and the new organism. What we see is the old organism AND the new organism, in pretty much the same places.

eric1589

04-07-2009, 07:48 PM

i have wasted far too much time discussing with creationists.

it usually comes down to me telling them that they wouldnt be religious if they even put 1/1,000,000 of the effort into questioning their religion, as they do science.

its absurd to think about some one sitting there on a COMPUTER disputing science. people using all kinds of technological advancements, discovered with science, to dispute one of science's biggest studies just because they refuse to believe that some one lied to them, and they believed it their entire life.

Dolphan7

04-07-2009, 08:41 PM

I have wasted far too much time discussing with Evolutionists.

It usually comes down to me telling them that they wouldn't be evolutionists if they even put 1/1,000,000 of the effort into questioning their belief, as they do God.

It's absurd to think about some one sitting there on a COMPUTER disputing God. People using all kinds of technological advancements, discovered with science, to dispute God's biggest creation just because they refuse to believe that some one lied to them, and they believed it their entire life.

tylerdolphin

04-07-2009, 08:45 PM

Wow you have managed to answer the hard questions evolutionists and old age abiogenesisists have grappled with for years....on a football message board.

Not.

Take number 10. This is where the rubber hits the road for Darwinian Macro Evolution to be true - at the DNA level, when the egg is fertilized and offspring begins to form. There is no new DNA or genetic information being created that has not already been created or stored in already existing DNA. Evolution falls on it's face right there. You can look and look, but you will find no evidence that this has ever happened, but more importantly - it can't happen. What you think you are seeing, and what they are telling you, is not new info being created, but old info being re-arranged, sometimes adding in latent characteristics into the organism that were already there. Darwin's finches, peppered moths et al. How do you think we continue to get new breeds of dog? It is because the potential is there in the DNA to begin with, and is bred into a breed by matching partners from differing breeds. We can see lots and lots of adaptation, but that isn't evolution. We never see an organism creating new DNA that allows it to jump into an entirely different Genus. Never. It is impossible.

Forget about all the many unanswered questions. Let's solve this riddle right now. Go find the evidence of new DNA being created that didn't exist before that allows an organism to jump not only species but genus as well.

Everything we see is as exactly as it has always been. The tree of evolution is most accurate at the ends. The middle is made up. We don't ever see anywhere anything that is in between the old organism and the new organism. What we see is the old organism AND the new organism, in pretty much the same places.
We have mapped the human genome and it shows that we have dormant genes from our ancestors. Thats the evidence. Fossils are also evidence. Im not sure how all the transitional fossils can be ignored.

tylerdolphin

04-07-2009, 08:46 PM

I have wasted far too much time discussing with Evolutionists.

It usually comes down to me telling them that they wouldn't be evolutionists if they even put 1/1,000,000 of the effort into questioning their belief, as they do God.

It's absurd to think about some one sitting there on a COMPUTER disputing God. People using all kinds of technological advancements, discovered with science, to dispute God's biggest creation just because they refuse to believe that some one lied to them, and they believed it their entire life.
Quite the opposite for me, actually. I was brought up to believe the Earth was 6,000 years old and all that. It simply doesnt hold water. Its kinda absurd that creationists think they have it figured out better than people with advanced degrees in biology and such. Weird how 99% of qualified scientists all believe the same thing, regardless of their own religions, backgrounds and locations.

Tetragrammaton

04-07-2009, 08:53 PM

What in blazes is an evolutionist? They are called scientists and biologists.

Dolphan7

04-07-2009, 09:05 PM

Quite the opposite for me, actually. I was brought up to believe the Earth was 6,000 years old and all that. It simply doesnt hold water. Its kinda absurd that creationists think they have it figured out better than people with advanced degrees in biology and such. Weird how 99% of qualified scientists all believe the same thing, regardless of their own religions, backgrounds and locations.
LOL. I noticed you used the word qualified. When you use that word, then yes you can make that statement every time. In fact you could probably say 100%.

Qualified scientists believe in evolution, qualified being indoctrinated into the belief. Of course they will all march in lock step.

Take away your qualifier and see what you get.

Hey it doesn't matter how many people of whatever qualification you want to use think it is true - the fact is it hasn't been proven and can't be proven because it is impossible to prove, because it didn't happen.

Remember the scripture - many are on the wide and easy path - that leads to destruction. That means that most of the people will not get it. There are a whole lot of people, many of them smart by man's standards, that are on that wide and easy path. But wisdom doesn't come from man, but from God.

Dolphan7

04-07-2009, 09:06 PM

What in blazes is an evolutionist? They are called scientists and biologists.
What in blazes is a Creationist? Many are scientists and biologists!!!

Your point counselor?

Tetragrammaton

04-07-2009, 09:11 PM

What in blazes is a Creationist? Many are scientists and biologists!!!

Your point counselor?

Creationists use the word creationism. Scientists do not use the word evolutionist. It is a petty insult derived from the same mind as Democrat Party and pro-abortion.

tylerdolphin

04-07-2009, 09:15 PM

LOL. I noticed you used the word qualified. When you use that word, then yes you can make that statement every time. In fact you could probably say 100%.

Qualified scientists believe in evolution, qualified being indoctrinated into the belief. Of course they will all march in lock step.

Take away your qualifier and see what you get.

Hey it doesn't matter how many people of whatever qualification you want to use think it is true - the fact is it hasn't been proven and can't be proven because it is impossible to prove, because it didn't happen.

Remember the scripture - many are on the wide and easy path - that leads to destruction. That means that most of the people will not get it. There are a whole lot of people, many of them smart by man's standards, that are on that wide and easy path. But wisdom doesn't come from man, but from God.
By qualified I mean a degree in a field that has to do with biology. I dont see why that should be such an issue if the evidence for creationism is so strong. It is not indoctrination...do you think that 99% of biologists are just gullible and got duped into believing a steaming pile of crap? OK.

eric1589

04-08-2009, 12:23 AM

...do you think that 99% of biologists are just gullible and got duped into believing a steaming pile of crap? OK.

of course thats what he thinks. its far more likely that thousands of people, proven to be smarter then this guy, are wrong, then it is for him to be wrong. and that is "logic" in his own little world, at the center of a crystal ball.

Dolphan7

04-08-2009, 01:20 AM

Creationists use the word creationism. Scientists do not use the word evolutionist. It is a petty insult derived from the same mind as Democrat Party and pro-abortion.One who believes in evolution is called an evolutionist. Where is that petty?

http://www.yourdictionary.com/evolutionist

evolutionist definition
evo·lu·tion·ist (-ist)
noun

a person who accepts the principles of biological evolution
a person who believes in the possibility of political and social progress by gradual, peaceful steps

adjective

of the theory of evolution
of evolutionists

Dolphan7

04-08-2009, 01:28 AM

By qualified I mean a degree in a field that has to do with biology. I dont see why that should be such an issue if the evidence for creationism is so strong. It is not indoctrination...do you think that 99% of biologists are just gullible and got duped into believing a steaming pile of crap? OK.There are many individuals who are degreed in biology who are creationists, or who don't subscribe to the evolutionary theory. Are they not qualified?

Of course if there is so much evidence to support evolution, please provide the new DNA that has been created, in nature, that actually is adding DNA that hasn't been created already. Good luck, because there isn't any such discovery. Because there can't be any such discovery, because evolution doesn't happen in the real world. It only happens in text books and in the minds of men.

tylerdolphin

04-08-2009, 01:36 AM

There are many individuals who are degreed in biology who are creationists, or who don't subscribe to the evolutionary theory. Are they not qualified?

Of course if there is so much evidence to support evolution, please provide the new DNA that has been created, in nature, that actually is adding DNA that hasn't been created already. Good luck, because there isn't any such discovery. Because there can't be any such discovery, because evolution doesn't happen in the real world. It only happens in text books and in the minds of men.
How do you explain the mountains of useless genes in our genome that are obviously from our evolutionary past? All the new DNA proof you want is right in our genome.

Tetragrammaton

04-08-2009, 01:48 AM

One who believes in evolution is called an evolutionist. Where is that petty?

http://www.yourdictionary.com/evolutionist

evolutionist definition
evo·lu·tion·ist (-ist)
noun

a person who accepts the principles of biological evolution
a person who believes in the possibility of political and social progress by gradual, peaceful steps

adjective

of the theory of evolution
of evolutionists

Come on. The term evolutionist is used by creationists, such as yourself, to try and demean the evolutionary synthesis by painting it as a religion. The Institute for Creation Science started the slur, and it is being dutifully followed.

At best, you are attempting to paint it as an obsolete vernacular, and I fail to see how you would come to use a nineteenth century term for certain ideas in the scientific field that is no longer in use. The term evolutionist is as derisive as Darwinism.

I really have to admire the tactics, not just by you or by anyone specifically. The rallying cry for fundamentalist Christians is pretty simple, really. Since they believe that all of the events and stories of the Bible are literally true, defiant to those where facts continue to pile up, they are able to scrutinize science they disagree with by pointing out any error. The evolutionary synthesis is not complete, and is worked on every day. Picking off those with high school or even only rudimentary knowledge about evolution is pretty easy with the Internet, with so many creation websites that have spent a lot of time and money picking out flaws in some of the work in order to discredit all of it. Since there is no debate in real scientific settings about the quality of their work, they do not give us talking points or memos in which to use. We are fighting the much harder battle in that sense.

However, even the most basic understanding of scientific history lays waste to the idea of a scientific conspiracy. Scientists are always eager to disprove the work of others, which is why they closely scrutinize and attempt to replicate the results of their colleagues. The ego forces them into this, partially, as well as a certain amount of a superiority complex. They want to be the best and they want to be famous, so if they can destroy a theory and replace it with their own, why don't they? What do scientists gain from making up such evidence? What do they gain from doing what you would call non-science? If the entire evolutionary synthesis is false, why would scientists waste years trying to create medicines through understanding of the system?

There is no reason for a cover up, and the only justification is this idea that Christians have that they are the most persecuted group in the country. They are the ones under attack by the atheists and the liberals and the homosexuals and the Muslims, spitting in the face of common sense and hubris. Homosexuals have to pretend to be what they are not because of persecution, and the atheist has to keep his opinions to himself, and the Muslim better not be in a situation where they might conflict with the Christian order. Instead, the more realistic answer is that Christianity is afraid of facts that prove portions of their scripture wrong, just like any other religion. Can you, or anyone who does not accept evolution, give us any reason why scientists, men and women who dedicate their formative years to learning vital skills, would orchestrate the biggest cover up ever known to man?

PhinPhan1227

04-08-2009, 01:59 AM

There are many individuals who are degreed in biology who are creationists, or who don't subscribe to the evolutionary theory. Are they not qualified?

Of course if there is so much evidence to support evolution, please provide the new DNA that has been created, in nature, that actually is adding DNA that hasn't been created already. Good luck, because there isn't any such discovery. Because there can't be any such discovery, because evolution doesn't happen in the real world. It only happens in text books and in the minds of men.

Dang D7, if you just switched a few things around, you could be a pure blood liberal. They ignore the effect of millenia on things like Global Warming, you ignore it where it concerns evolution. Charming.

tylerdolphin

04-08-2009, 02:03 AM

Come on. The term evolutionist is used by creationists, such as yourself, to try and demean the evolutionary synthesis by painting it as a religion. The Institute for Creation Science started the slur, and it is being dutifully followed.

At best, you are attempting to paint it as an obsolete vernacular, and I fail to see how you would come to use a nineteenth century term for certain ideas in the scientific field that is no longer in use. The term evolutionist is as derisive as Darwinism.

I really have to admire the tactics, not just by you or by anyone specifically. The rallying cry for fundamentalist Christians is pretty simple, really. Since they believe that all of the events and stories of the Bible are literally true, defiant to those where facts continue to pile up, they are able to scrutinize science they disagree with by pointing out any error. The evolutionary synthesis is not complete, and is worked on every day. Picking off those with high school or even only rudimentary knowledge about evolution is pretty easy with the Internet, with so many creation websites that have spent a lot of time and money picking out flaws in some of the work in order to discredit all of it. Since there is no debate in real scientific settings about the quality of their work, they do not give us talking points or memos in which to use. We are fighting the much harder battle in that sense.

However, even the most basic understanding of scientific history lays waste to the idea of a scientific conspiracy. Scientists are always eager to disprove the work of others, which is why they closely scrutinize and attempt to replicate the results of their colleagues. The ego forces them into this, partially, as well as a certain amount of a superiority complex. They want to be the best and they want to be famous, so if they can destroy a theory and replace it with their own, why don't they? What do scientists gain from making up such evidence? What do they gain from doing what you would call non-science? If the entire evolutionary synthesis is false, why would scientists waste years trying to create medicines through understanding of the system?

There is no reason for a cover up, and the only justification is this idea that Christians have that they are the most persecuted group in the country. They are the ones under attack by the atheists and the liberals and the homosexuals and the Muslims, spitting in the face of common sense and hubris. Homosexuals have to pretend to be what they are not because of persecution, and the atheist has to keep his opinions to himself, and the Muslim better not be in a situation where they might conflict with the Christian order. Instead, the more realistic answer is that Christianity is afraid of facts that prove portions of their scripture wrong, just like any other religion. Can you, or anyone who does not accept evolution, give us any reason why scientists, men and women who dedicate their formative years to learning vital skills, would orchestrate the biggest cover up ever known to man?
Exactly. You're much better at getting a coherent idea across than me :lol:

Much of the evidence for evolution is not able to be faked. You can't fake the geologic column. You can't fake all the intermediate fossils they have discovered in the geologic column. I'm sure the Human Genome Project was not a big conspiracy, and that showed just how similar we are to other primates. You can't fake vestigial structures. You can't fake documented cases of speciation.

Dolphan7

04-08-2009, 02:16 AM

How do you explain the mountains of useless genes in our genome that are obviously from our evolutionary past? All the new DNA proof you want is right in our genome.Who says that these useless genes are useless, or from our evolutionary past? How would one know that? You see? This is what I mean, where is the evidence, there must be an entire wing of the library of Congress dedicated to this evidence, yet.......

crickets......

Dolphan7

04-08-2009, 02:40 AM

Come on. The term evolutionist is used by creationists, such as yourself, to try and demean the evolutionary synthesis by painting it as a religion. The Institute for Creation Science started the slur, and it is being dutifully followed.

At best, you are attempting to paint it as an obsolete vernacular, and I fail to see how you would come to use a nineteenth century term for certain ideas in the scientific field that is no longer in use. The term evolutionist is as derisive as Darwinism.

I really have to admire the tactics, not just by you or by anyone specifically. The rallying cry for fundamentalist Christians is pretty simple, really. Since they believe that all of the events and stories of the Bible are literally true, defiant to those where facts continue to pile up, they are able to scrutinize science they disagree with by pointing out any error. The evolutionary synthesis is not complete, and is worked on every day. Picking off those with high school or even only rudimentary knowledge about evolution is pretty easy with the Internet, with so many creation websites that have spent a lot of time and money picking out flaws in some of the work in order to discredit all of it. Since there is no debate in real scientific settings about the quality of their work, they do not give us talking points or memos in which to use. We are fighting the much harder battle in that sense.

However, even the most basic understanding of scientific history lays waste to the idea of a scientific conspiracy. Scientists are always eager to disprove the work of others, which is why they closely scrutinize and attempt to replicate the results of their colleagues. The ego forces them into this, partially, as well as a certain amount of a superiority complex. They want to be the best and they want to be famous, so if they can destroy a theory and replace it with their own, why don't they? What do scientists gain from making up such evidence? What do they gain from doing what you would call non-science? If the entire evolutionary synthesis is false, why would scientists waste years trying to create medicines through understanding of the system?

There is no reason for a cover up, and the only justification is this idea that Christians have that they are the most persecuted group in the country. They are the ones under attack by the atheists and the liberals and the homosexuals and the Muslims, spitting in the face of common sense and hubris. Homosexuals have to pretend to be what they are not because of persecution, and the atheist has to keep his opinions to himself, and the Muslim better not be in a situation where they might conflict with the Christian order. Instead, the more realistic answer is that Christianity is afraid of facts that prove portions of their scripture wrong, just like any other religion. Can you, or anyone who does not accept evolution, give us any reason why scientists, men and women who dedicate their formative years to learning vital skills, would orchestrate the biggest cover up ever known to man?Feel better now? Rant over?

Back to the term evolutionist. I use it to describe those who believe in evolution, or support it. Sorry but it is a term I use and it is in fact accurate and appropriate, and it is in the dictionary. It isn't meant to demean anyone, but identify.

Dolphan7

04-08-2009, 02:45 AM

Dang D7, if you just switched a few things around, you could be a pure blood liberal. They ignore the effect of millenia on things like Global Warming, you ignore it where it concerns evolution. Charming.Yeah it's kinda like when one ignores the authenticity and accuracy of the bible, the bible that ones very own God wrote for him to tell him what's what......you know....kinda like that.:up:

I am ignoring nothing about evolution. It hasn't been proven, there is no evidence where the evidence should be, at the DNA and molecular level. It ain't there. You can't ignore nothing.

Dolphan7

04-08-2009, 02:54 AM

Exactly. You're much better at getting a coherent idea across than me :lol:

Much of the evidence for evolution is not able to be faked. You can't fake the geologic column. You can't fake all the intermediate fossils they have discovered in the geologic column. I'm sure the Human Genome Project was not a big conspiracy, and that showed just how similar we are to other primates. You can't fake vestigial structures. You can't fake documented cases of speciation.The geologic column? Where did it come from then? You think that someone dug a whole, and wrote down what they saw and called it the column? Is that what you believe? You do realize that it exists no where in the world in it's entire compliment of layers, as uniformitarianism states. It was made up based on evolutionary theory and uniformitarianism.

Intermediate fossils? How many? There ae a few odd creatures that "may" be related to creature x and y, or maybe is this or maybe is that...they don't know. The point is that if evolution is true, there should be trillions of intermediates in the ground, trial and error over and over again trillions of times. And they have a handful?

We are similar to primates, ok what does that mean? Dos that mean we evolved from them, or the designer used a similar blueprint, with similar features? Could go either way. Since the lack of evidence for evolution, I go with the Creator concept.

Speciation is simply adaptation. Show Genus jump.

No one is saying people are faking things, but there is a belief system in place within the scientific community that holds to evolutionalry theory first and foremost, and denies supernatural explanations right off the bat.

Jimi

04-08-2009, 08:16 AM

People have been so sure of things since recorded history (and im sure before that) and were eventually proven wrong later.

This is not just about evolution. But in that case, just remeber guys before you go off ranting how illogical it is try and open your mind. There are holes in evolution, its not 100% i cant believe that point is even being debated. Same thing with creationism.

tylerdolphin

04-08-2009, 09:50 AM

The geologic column? Where did it come from then? You think that someone dug a whole, and wrote down what they saw and called it the column? Is that what you believe? You do realize that it exists no where in the world in it's entire compliment of layers, as uniformitarianism states. It was made up based on evolutionary theory and uniformitarianism.

Intermediate fossils? How many? There ae a few odd creatures that "may" be related to creature x and y, or maybe is this or maybe is that...they don't know. The point is that if evolution is true, there should be trillions of intermediates in the ground, trial and error over and over again trillions of times. And they have a handful?

We are similar to primates, ok what does that mean? Dos that mean we evolved from them, or the designer used a similar blueprint, with similar features? Could go either way. Since the lack of evidence for evolution, I go with the Creator concept.

Speciation is simply adaptation. Show Genus jump.

No one is saying people are faking things, but there is a belief system in place within the scientific community that holds to evolutionalry theory first and foremost, and denies supernatural explanations right off the bat.
1. You are not serious, are you?
Do you really need the full, complete geologic column from beginning to end, all in one particular location? Is that the standard of proof you have? Apply that a quarter standard to the Biblical account and see where that ends up. Most geologists believe the entire column has been found in North Dakota and many other locations anyway. Regardless, even a partial geologic column shows the great age of the Earth and has evidence of evolution in it.
http://rst.gsfc.nasa.gov/Sect2/Sect2_1b.html

I have a question for you. Do you believe that all the layers we see were deposited at the same time, during a great flood? If your answer is yes, then no amount of evidence is EVER going to convince you that evolution happened, short of God telling you himself.

2. You are not serious are you?
They have many transitional fossils and you can't deny that. It is not a perfect, gapless record, but that is not even needed nor can be expected.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

3. Kinda like how someone, somewhere down the line figured out that lightening had a natural explanation, not Zeus throwing bolts from the sky. I'm guessing you would have criticized that guy for denying supernatural explanations.

Dolphan7

04-08-2009, 01:36 PM

1. You are not serious, are you?
Do you really need the full, complete geologic column from beginning to end, all in one particular location? Is that the standard of proof you have? Apply that a quarter standard to the Biblical account and see where that ends up. Most geologists believe the entire column has been found in North Dakota and many other locations anyway. Regardless, even a partial geologic column shows the great age of the Earth and has evidence of evolution in it.
http://rst.gsfc.nasa.gov/Sect2/Sect2_1b.html
You are missing the entire point. The column is a conceptual idea that only exists in textbooks and in the minds of the faithful. It has been pieced together from different parts of the planet. It was created, or thought up, based on uniformitarianism and long periods of evolution, and the search for the complete column has been ongoing ever since. They think they have found it in ND, but there are problems with that. But just one location in the whole world? Kinda debunks that uniformitarianism view dontcha think? But that isn't science. That is creating a theory and then finding the evidence to back it up, and in this case unsuccessfully. Science is about discovery, and then explanation, not the other way around. Now you may respond by saying, isn't that what creationists do? Yes that is exactly what we do. We don't need to discover, because God has already told us how He created everything. Our science is simply verifying His word.

Science is supposed say - here is what we see, and then try to propose an explanation, and then prove it.

Creation says we already have the explanation, now we simply look and verify that explanation.

I have a question for you. Do you believe that all the layers we see were deposited at the same time, during a great flood? If your answer is yes, then no amount of evidence is EVER going to convince you that evolution happened, short of God telling you himself. There is much evidence of a fast deposition of many layers from the cambrian on up, which points to a global flood and a mass extinction of many life forms as is found in the cambrian. Is the entire earth crust the result of the flood? Probably not.

2. You are not serious are you?
They have many transitional fossils and you can't deny that. It is not a perfect, gapless record, but that is not even needed nor can be expected.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossilsYou are missing the point, again. There should be trillions of intermediate fossils, from pre-cambrian on up through the ages. And they think they have found a few that "may" be intermediate? A few? And the fact that most life is found in the cambrian layers screams of a catasrophic event that rapidly deposted those organism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion

3. Kinda like how someone, somewhere down the line figured out that lightening had a natural explanation, not Zeus throwing bolts from the sky. I'm guessing you would have criticized that guy for denying supernatural explanations.Huh?

tylerdolphin

04-08-2009, 01:59 PM

Sorry, I wasnt very clear with #3. What I meant was why wouldnt we ignore supernatural explanations? As we learn more and more, old things that we used to attribute to supernatural things are now explained. That will continue for the forseeable future as we learn even more.

Dolphan7

04-08-2009, 02:05 PM

Sorry, I wasnt very clear with #3. What I meant was why wouldnt we ignore supernatural explanations? As we learn more and more, old things that we used to attribute to supernatural things are now explained. That will continue for the forseeable future as we learn even more.Because science is about seeking the truth and discovery, and it may not be able to explain supernatural events, it shouldn't ignore them or exclude them. This is the problem I have with modern science that is dominated by people who are anti-God. There is no room for alternative debate and the inclusion of the supernatural. That isn't science anymore, it is dogma.

I mean science starts with one hand tied behind their back.

"We want to find the truth, but we will not look for that truth in this area right here"

Kinda puts manmade limits on what one is allowed to discuss and debate and ....get funding for.

tylerdolphin

04-08-2009, 02:47 PM

Because science is about seeking the truth and discovery, and it may not be able to explain supernatural events, it shouldn't ignore them or exclude them. This is the problem I have with modern science that is dominated by people who are anti-God. There is no room for alternative debate and the inclusion of the supernatural. That isn't science anymore, it is dogma.

I mean science starts with one hand tied behind their back.

"We want to find the truth, but we will not look for that truth in this area right here"

Kinda puts manmade limits on what one is allowed to discuss and debate and ....get funding for.
To just say "God did it" requires nothing at all. Of course all the funding goes to finding a natural explanation. By just assuming God did it, we would never have reached this point, so why would we start assuming things like that now?

Dolphan7

04-08-2009, 03:11 PM

To just say "God did it" requires nothing at all. Of course all the funding goes to finding a natural explanation. By just assuming God did it, we would never have reached this point, so why would we start assuming things like that now?It isn't about assuming anything. It is about taking the biblical record and looking at the physical evidence that supports that model. Taking the age of the earth debate out of the discussion for a moment, the evidence we see in the earth supports a biblical model just as much if not more than a uniformitarian model. There is so much evidence of catastrophism. That is something that we can look at and not have to assume.

But also keep in mind some of the greatest men of science were also diests.

http://www.adherents.com/people/100_scientists.html

Belief in God doesn't have to mute the science of discovery, but limiting your scope of discovery to exclude God does.

tylerdolphin

04-08-2009, 05:35 PM

It isn't about assuming anything. It is about taking the biblical record and looking at the physical evidence that supports that model. Taking the age of the earth debate out of the discussion for a moment, the evidence we see in the earth supports a biblical model just as much if not more than a uniformitarian model. There is so much evidence of catastrophism. That is something that we can look at and not have to assume.

But also keep in mind some of the greatest men of science were also diests.

http://www.adherents.com/people/100_scientists.html

Belief in God doesn't have to mute the science of discovery, but limiting your scope of discovery to exclude God does.
So what if they were deists...I'm not an atheist either. The fact is we have to keep trying to solve things naturally until we can't anymore. They would agree. And the Flood is only supported in your own mind, by the way. There is no evidence of a biblical worldwide flood. Zilch. Matter of fact there is a LOT of evidence against it:
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=17&t=198&m=1

Tetragrammaton

04-08-2009, 06:09 PM

I get a chuckle out of people clamoring to the fact that scientists have been religious. They were also alchemists, and I hope no one is spending time in their shed attempting that one.

Dolphan7

04-08-2009, 07:38 PM

I get a chuckle out of people clamoring to the fact that scientists have been religious. They were also alchemists, and I hope no one is spending time in their shed attempting that one.You missed the point. The statement was made that religion or belief in God took away from scientific discovery, and the truth is that many great men of science were also religious.

Darwin was religious and believed in God, or a God.

Dolphan7

04-08-2009, 07:41 PM

So what if they were deists...I'm not an atheist either. The fact is we have to keep trying to solve things naturally until we can't anymore. They would agree. And the Flood is only supported in your own mind, by the way. There is no evidence of a biblical worldwide flood. Zilch. Matter of fact there is a LOT of evidence against it:
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=17&t=198&m=1

I just created two threads that do support an ancient flood. You can look for all sorts of sites and forums that will dispute that, and I can show you secular science that supports it. You make the call.

You see though you just made a statement that is the underlying problem with science today. They, and you, believe that we have to solve things naturally, thus eliminating God out of the equation. That isn't science, that is dogma of the scientific nature.

tylerdolphin

04-08-2009, 07:48 PM

If it makes NO sense naturally, then yes, I logically assume it is not true.
I chose that particular link because it has every argument lumped into one convenient post. If you read it then you know as well as me that the flood as described in the Bible makes ZERO logical sense.

Tetragrammaton

04-08-2009, 07:56 PM

You missed the point. The statement was made that religion or belief in God took away from scientific discovery, and the truth is that many great men of science were also religious.

Darwin was religious and believed in God, or a God.

But you prove nothing. Who knows what could have been done if they weren't religious? How much faster would astronomy have developed if religion was not in the way?

Dolphan7

04-08-2009, 08:01 PM

If it makes NO sense naturally, then yes, I logically assume it is not true.
I chose that particular link because it has every argument lumped into one convenient post. If you read it then you know as well as me that the flood as described in the Bible makes ZERO logical sense.See, you just did it again.

If it makes NO sense naturally, then yes, I logically assume it is not true.

Closing your mind off to things simply because you can't explain them naturally is not seeking truth, but an agenda.

I have read tons of counter-arguments of creation and the flood and Jesus and the bible. None of the arguments make sense because they all look at things with a secular viewpoint highly skewed and biased toward uniformitarianism and evolution, and.....they really aren't seeking the truth, but to simply make fun of religion for the most part.

Hey you can find lots of people to tell you what you want to hear, or lend support to what you think you know.

2TI 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires,
2TI 4:4 and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths.
This is a first century Apostle who just described the evolution crowd of the 21st century. Amazing!

Dolphan7

04-08-2009, 08:05 PM

But you prove nothing. Who knows what could have been done if they weren't religious? How much faster would astronomy have developed if religion was not in the way?You prove nothing as well. There is no way to tell if we would have been further along in discovery without religion.

The point is that religion and science have been bedfellows for quite a long time. Only until recently has the scientific community rejected evidence of supernatural events.

tylerdolphin

04-08-2009, 08:12 PM

See, you just did it again.

If it makes NO sense naturally, then yes, I logically assume it is not true.

Closing your mind off to things simply because you can't explain them naturally is not seeking truth, but an agenda.

I have read tons of counter-arguments of creation and the flood and Jesus and the bible. None of the arguments make sense because they all look at things with a secular viewpoint highly skewed and biased toward uniformitarianism and evolution, and.....they really aren't seeking the truth, but to simply make fun of religion for the most part.

Hey you can find lots of people to tell you what you want to hear, or lend support to what you think you know.
This is a first century Apostle who just described the evolution crowd of the 21st century. Amazing!
No D7...Im not closing my kind to something thats open for debate. Im closing my mind to something that defies common sense.
How did everything survive on a wooden ark for a year?

The animals adapted for dessert environments would die in the 100% humidity

There was no way animals could survive a post flood world, esp. predators

Why are there still viruses and parasites? Was every animal infected? If so how come they didnt die?

How did Noah keep food for over a year in 100% humidity with no refridgeration?

How did the animals live in harmony?

Where did all the waste go? There were not enough people to clean up after them.

There has not been enough time to refreeze the ice caps since the supposed flood.

The Egyptians apparently did fine in the supposed flood. They were busy building monuments.

And Stonehenge was building from just before the flood straight through the flood and was still going on after the flood. Quite remarkable.

And heres the kicker for me:
We are supposed to believe that these "kinds" of animals went into hyper-micro-evolution to produce the speciation we see today. Yet macro evolution is impossible. We got from one type of cat to lions, tigers, housecats, bobcats and everything in between in a few thousand years, but it is not possible that macro could take place over billions of years. The hypocrisy is amazing to watch.

Dolphan7

04-08-2009, 10:10 PM

No D7...Im not closing my kind to something thats open for debate. Im closing my mind to something that defies common sense.Your common sense is preventing you from seeing the big picture here. It still gets back to bias and perspective. My common sense tells me creation is the logical and intellectual choice. Go figure.

How did everything survive on a wooden ark for a year?You couldn't survive on a cruise ship for a year? It is the same principle. Stocked with food. Some animals were for consumptions. Chickens laid eggs. They would have had some small plants to eat with their meat and eggs. Grains for flour to make bread. Very plausible. It probably wasn't easy, but certainly possible.

The animals adapted for dessert environments would die in the 100% humidityMany did die right after the flood. That is why the dino's died off. They for the most part were herbivores and needed lots of lush green vegatation to eat, which didn't exist for a while after the flood. And those that are adapted for the desert today may not have been that way then. Adaptation can happen in a few thousand years. We have seen it happen in shorter periods of time.

There was no way animals could survive a post flood world, esp. predatorsMany did die off. But why wouldn't some be able to survive? There had to have been a time where Noah and his family had to nurture them back into a breeding population again, some sort of animal husbandry would seem logical.

Why are there still viruses and parasites? Was every animal infected? If so how come they didnt die?Do you know how many germs live in just your mouth? Google that. It isn't hard to envision that some basic forms of bacteria survived, and then adapted as we see it doing today. If parasites and viruses propagated under Adam and Eve, it could happen with Noah and his family no problem.

How did Noah keep food for over a year in 100% humidity with no refridgeration??Animals for meat, and eggs, and probably lots of rice and grains to feed them, or some other staple. Small vegetables. Remember it took 120 years to make the darn ark. Plenty of time to stock up and improvise.

How did the animals live in harmony? Cages? Hybernation? Taking young pairs instead of full grown adults. Remember the animals of today may not have been the exact same animals then.

Where did all the waste go? There were not enough people to clean up after them.Probably not a very nice job, but, when you got no where else to go and all day.....no problem. Waste? Over the side and into the ocean of course. That is what I would do.

There has not been enough time to refreeze the ice caps since the supposed flood.Why do you assume they were frozen to begin with? If the climate was temperate the world over as the fossil record shows, and then you diluge the world with water and rain, cutting off the sun, and with all that moisture in the air and cooler temps......how do you think snap frozen Mammoths happened. It happened that fast.

The Egyptians apparently did fine in the supposed flood. They were busy building monuments.You know the exact date of the Flood? Really? Obviously the Flood happened long before the Egyptians. In fact the Egyptians are descendants of Noah's family, just like we all are.

And Stonehenge was building from just before the flood straight through the flood and was still going on after the flood. Quite remarkable.Really? This knowledge requires that you know the precise date of the flood. When did it happen? I'd like to know.

And heres the kicker for me:
We are supposed to believe that these "kinds" of animals went into hyper-micro-evolution to produce the speciation we see today. Yet macro evolution is impossible. We got from one type of cat to lions, tigers, housecats, bobcats and everything in between in a few thousand years, but it is not possible that macro could take place over billions of years. The hypocrisy is amazing to watch.Yes macro evolution is impossible, but micro evolution could accomplish this in a very short time. We see it in action every day practically. This isn't hypocritical. It is demanding evidence that so far evolutionists have not been able to provide. Yet the belief is strong....I call that religion!

Dolphan7

04-08-2009, 10:25 PM

Interesting read on Natural Selection.

http://evidentcreation.com/DE-Natsel.html

tylerdolphin

04-08-2009, 11:11 PM

Do you know how many germs live in just your mouth? Google that. It isn't hard to envision that some basic forms of bacteria survived, and then adapted as we see it doing today. If parasites and viruses propagated under Adam and Eve, it could happen with Noah and his family no problem.

I do believe what you are suggesting would be macro evolution.

eric1589

04-08-2009, 11:32 PM

You missed the point. The statement was made that religion or belief in God took away from scientific discovery, and the truth is that many great men of science were also religious.

Darwin was religious and believed in God, or a God.

no dude, you miss the point.

their beliefs stand in the way of their discovery when ever there is a contradiction. and you know there are MANY contradictions.

saying Darwin was religious supports the point you are arguing against. its funny that you don't understand that. he is an example.

think about how much time, in your entire life, you have spent looking into things that contradict your religion, or challenge your faith. think of all the time you waste in threads like this alone.

now think of how much time Darwin wasted thinking about things like that, instead of digging deeper into his research. think of how much time and effort was wasted trying to answer the puzzle he saw, with the religion he was programmed with. how many hours spent trying plug the holes with supernatural stories that didn't fit.

that is a prime example of religion hurting us. he was the guy who discovered this entire field of research. a field that continues to grow in depth and integrity because it shows links to other fields of study, it points to links between other fields as well.

how much more advanced would such a beneficial study be? had the man who discovered it, not been side tracked for exorbitant amounts of time.

PhinPhan1227

04-08-2009, 11:37 PM

But you prove nothing. Who knows what could have been done if they weren't religious? How much faster would astronomy have developed if religion was not in the way?

The knowledge of the Greeks and Romans was preserved by the Catholics and Muslims. Without those two religions, that knowledge would have been lost to the "barbarian" hordes who occupied the lands of the Roman Empire. We know they would have been lost because the only places they were preserved in any real way was in lands controlled by the Church or the Calliphate. And the reasons they were preserved were religious in nature. And not only were they preserved, they were nurtured by those two religions. Nurtured and expanded upon. The first universities in Europe were established by the Muslim Caliphate. And the Renaisance was begun by thoe universities and schools established by the Church.

So ask yourself this...where would Astronomy, Mathematics, and all the other sciences be if the Muslim and Christian religions hadn't saved the knowledge of the Greeks and Romans? Because without them, it would all have been lost.

PhinPhan1227

04-08-2009, 11:41 PM

Yeah it's kinda like when one ignores the authenticity and accuracy of the bible, the bible that ones very own God wrote for him to tell him what's what......you know....kinda like that.:up:

I am ignoring nothing about evolution. It hasn't been proven, there is no evidence where the evidence should be, at the DNA and molecular level. It ain't there. You can't ignore nothing.

Now, I do believe that God etched the ten commandments into stone for Moses. Other than that, I'm pretty sure that men wrote everything else at Gods suggestion. But men are flawed. I have utter faith in God. It's men I don't trust.

As to the rest, if you could step outside yourself for a minute you would find it hysterical how much you sound EXACTLY like the people you are railing against.

PhinPhan1227

04-08-2009, 11:46 PM

no dude, you miss the point.

their beliefs stand in the way of their discovery when ever there is a contradiction. and you know there are MANY contradictions.

saying Darwin was religious supports the point you are arguing against. its funny that you don't understand that. he is an example.

think about how much time, in your entire life, you have spent looking into things that contradict your religion, or challenge your faith. think of all the time you waste in threads like this alone.

now think of how much time Darwin wasted thinking about things like that, instead of digging deeper into his research. think of how much time and effort was wasted trying to answer the puzzle he saw, with the religion he was programmed with. how many hours spent trying plug the holes with supernatural stories that didn't fit.

that is a prime example of religion hurting us. he was the guy who discovered this entire field of research. a field that continues to grow in depth and integrity because it shows links to other fields of study, it points to links between other fields as well.

how much more advanced would such a beneficial study be? had the man who discovered it, not been side tracked for exorbitant amounts of time.

One sided thinking. Some of the best teachers in the world are Jesuit Priests. They teach people how to conduct analytical thinking, and are world renowned for their skills. Further, the best schools in the world at the time were all religious based. Where would Darwin have been without the education he recieved?

Tetragrammaton

04-08-2009, 11:51 PM

You prove nothing as well. There is no way to tell if we would have been further along in discovery without religion.

The point is that religion and science have been bedfellows for quite a long time. Only until recently has the scientific community rejected evidence of supernatural events.

I am not trying to prove anything. There is no way to determine the effect of ones religious beliefs has on their scientific discoveries. If you are going to boast how many scientists were religious, you also have to own that many were alchemists, and that many times, stubbornness about their religion kept developments from occurring.

Tetragrammaton

04-08-2009, 11:53 PM

The knowledge of the Greeks and Romans was preserved by the Catholics and Muslims. Without those two religions, that knowledge would have been lost to the "barbarian" hordes who occupied the lands of the Roman Empire. We know they would have been lost because the only places they were preserved in any real way was in lands controlled by the Church or the Calliphate. And the reasons they were preserved were religious in nature. And not only were they preserved, they were nurtured by those two religions. Nurtured and expanded upon. The first universities in Europe were established by the Muslim Caliphate. And the Renaisance was begun by thoe universities and schools established by the Church.

So ask yourself this...where would Astronomy, Mathematics, and all the other sciences be if the Muslim and Christian religions hadn't saved the knowledge of the Greeks and Romans? Because without them, it would all have been lost.

See post above. I am not trying to argue one side, I am simply saying that you cannot say with a straight face that religion has led to the best modes of discovery. Boasting how knowledge was preserved means you also have to own how the Church kept many scientific developments from being spread. Or we could not try and use such tactics in our debate.

eric1589

04-09-2009, 12:03 AM

I just created two threads that do support an ancient flood. You can look for all sorts of sites and forums that will dispute that, and I can show you secular science that supports it. You make the call.

You see though you just made a statement that is the underlying problem with science today. They, and you, believe that we have to solve things naturally, thus eliminating God out of the equation. That isn't science, that is dogma of the scientific nature.

seriously?

you, a creationist, are going to sit there and try to tell some one else what science is?

you basically just took the definition of science and said "science is not science."

magic and miracles are not science. you have to be able to observe, test, study, experiment and research something for it to be a science study. you cant do that with "abbra kadabbra."
you cant put 'hocus pocus' in a test tube and introduce a little 'kazamm.' you cant observe anything with that. you cant test anything with that. you cant study anything with that. you cant experiment with that. you cant research that. that is not science. that is the supernatural.
this is a common misconception with creationists, including those who now call themselves intelligent design supporters, even though its the same thing. you cant dumb down science in the hopes that its standards will stoop low enough to include you. if you have to resort to lowering the credibility of something before you can be recognized as a part of it... shouldn't you sit back and think about what you are fighting for?

Dolphan7

04-09-2009, 01:00 PM

Now, I do believe that God etched the ten commandments into stone for Moses. Other than that, I'm pretty sure that men wrote everything else at Gods suggestion. But men are flawed. I have utter faith in God. It's men I don't trust.

As to the rest, if you could step outside yourself for a minute you would find it hysterical how much you sound EXACTLY like the people you are railing against.You believe God etched the ten commandments in stone for Moses?

How do you know that? Do you have those stones tablets? Did God tell you himself?

How do you know the men who wrote the bible didn't just say that, or make an allegory?

Man if you could just step outside yourself for a moment and see how hilarious this sounds.

See? We can all laugh together at each other all day long, but in the end only one thing will be true.

There is no doubt in my mind which one that is.:up:

Dolphan7

04-09-2009, 01:05 PM

I do believe what you are suggesting would be macro evolution.I know you would, but it would actually be micro-evolution, or adaptation, survival of the fittest. Life continues along within it's already created boundaries, adapting and surviving based on mating partners, climate and diet. All well within the DNA potential already in place.

Dolphan7

04-09-2009, 01:14 PM

I am not trying to prove anything. There is no way to determine the effect of ones religious beliefs has on their scientific discoveries. If you are going to boast how many scientists were religious, you also have to own that many were alchemists, and that many times, stubbornness about their religion kept developments from occurring.And you would also have to agree that science today is held back because it excludes God from the picture, effectively tying one hand behind their back in the search for discovery.

How much more could science have accomplished if it would look at Creation as from God. How many secrets could be revealed of God's creation if they open up their hearts and minds to it?

Think about it. If evolution is false, which it is looking more an more each year that it is, how much time is being wasted on research that could be used in other areas of science that could have a huge impact on our daily lives - like cancer and other diseases, inventions and technology to make our lives better.

Hey if we could take all the money dumped in the evolution studies and divert it to alternative fuels and energy we could be so far ahead of the impending oil crisis. Maybe there is something in all God's creation that we are missing that could be the answer to our energy needs?

Dolphan7

04-09-2009, 01:16 PM

See post above. I am not trying to argue one side, I am simply saying that you cannot say with a straight face that religion has led to the best modes of discovery. Boasting how knowledge was preserved means you also have to own how the Church kept many scientific developments from being spread. Or we could not try and use such tactics in our debate.Who said anything about religion has led to the best modes of discovery?

All I said was that many of our greatest scientists are/were religious.

eric1589

04-10-2009, 12:16 AM

All I said was that many of our greatest scientists are/were religious.

you make this claim like it speaks good of religion... it does not. especially when religion is not commonly something people go out and search for. it is something they are "taught" since they are young, impressionable children trying to piece everything together to understand the world they are in.

if anything it shows that people considered to be the brightest minds in our history were not satisfied with the answers they were given. they knew that there was more and they went looking for it. and guess what came about from that search. come on... can you guess?

Phin19

04-13-2009, 02:23 PM

Evolution and religion/God are NOT mutually exclusive. actually many churches/religions accept evolution as valid, e. g. The catholic church, the orthodox chuch, some mainline protestants, some jewish denominations, etc.
Ever heard of theistic evolution or similar concepts as christian darwinism and evolutionary creationism.
In fact it is mostly bible literallists who contest evolution, I don't think religion and evolution are necessarily conflicting with each other. Evolution doesn't rule out the possibilty of a God who started it all, I just explains how it happened through time. Some have created an ilussion that God is in conflict with Evolution, It is for the most part false cause not all religious/God believing people share this view.

To me this is kinda like the geocentrism-heliocentrism debate. It now seems irrelevant but there was a lot of fuss about it back in the time.

Dolphan7

04-13-2009, 03:55 PM

Evolution and religion/God are NOT mutually exclusive. actually many churches/religions accept evolution as valid, e. g. The catholic church, the orthodox chuch, some mainline protestants, some jewish denominations, etc.
Ever heard of theistic evolution or similar concepts as christian darwinism and evolutionary creationism.
In fact it is mostly bible literallists who contest evolution, I don't think religion and evolution are necessarily conflicting with each other. Evolution doesn't rule out the possibilty of a God who started it all, I just explains how it happened through time. Some have created an ilussion that God is in conflict with Evolution, It is for the most part false cause not all religious/God believing people share this view.

To me this is kinda like the geocentrism-heliocentrism debate. It now seems irrelevant but there was a lot of fuss about it back in the time.Mainstream science in evolutionary theory is believed by it's adherents to be exclusive of God, meaning it attempts to provide natural explanations for our origins and evolution. Therefore it is diametrically opposed to religion and a belief in a creator or designer as the cause of our origins.

To my knowledge the only ones who attempt to blend the two, or create a compromise, are religious or are churches who are apostate, thus we get Theistic Evolution. This is a false teaching in and of itself. It doesn't square with either evolution, or the bible. And simply calling something false because certain people believe the opposite, really isn't a foundation I would base my beliefs on.

Theistic evolution has so many holes in it that it is quickly discarded under closer review.

Cassiopeia

04-13-2009, 03:57 PM

Mainstream science in evolutionary theory is believed by it's adherents to be exclusive of God, meaning it attempts to provide natural explanations for our origins and evolution. Therefore it is diametrically opposed to religion and a belief in a creator or designer as the cause of our origins.

To my knowledge the only ones who attempt to blend the two, or create a compromise, are religious or are churches who are apostate, thus we get Theistic Evolution. This is a false teaching in and of itself. It doesn't square with either evolution, or the bible. And simply calling something false because certain people believe the opposite, really isn't a foundation I would base my beliefs on.

Theistic evolution has so many holes in it that it is quickly discarded under closer review.

i agree! theistic evolution is a cop out as nick would say. having seen both sides in detail, i can honestly say you have to go one way or the other. there is little room for overlap!

PhinPhan1227

04-13-2009, 05:41 PM

i agree! theistic evolution is a cop out as nick would say. having seen both sides in detail, i can honestly say you have to go one way or the other. there is little room for overlap!

I thoroughly disagree! Now, for someone like D7 who is a literalist, no, there can be no overlap because of the limitation of a six day creation. For those who do not share that belief however, there is nothing in the bible which prohibits evolution, and there is certainly nothing in evolution which prohibits god setting everything in motion.

Look, just because you can give the broad strokes of the mechanism of evolution doesn't mean you are saying anything about the force or forces which put that mechanism into motion. As a religious person I not only recognize the mechanics of nature, I revel in them. Some people find things like turning water into wine miraculous, I point to the simple act of fermentation as being much more impressive, and much more of a sign of gods hand.

In a nutshell, the Theory of Evolution is like knowing the theory of the internal combustion engine. Just because you know the theory doesn't mean you are now the Mercedes Benz corporation.

PhinPhan1227

04-13-2009, 05:56 PM

You believe God etched the ten commandments in stone for Moses?

How do you know that? Do you have those stones tablets? Did God tell you himself?

How do you know the men who wrote the bible didn't just say that, or make an allegory?

Man if you could just step outside yourself for a moment and see how hilarious this sounds.

See? We can all laugh together at each other all day long, but in the end only one thing will be true.

There is no doubt in my mind which one that is.:up:

Actually, I believe that the only words God claims to have written personally were the ones etched into the tablets given to Moses. But you know what, if they were transcribed, it wouldn't really matter. Whether they were etched or not doesn't change anything about my faith. Whether Aliens wrote them or not doesn't change anything about my faith. Whether God took eight seconds or eight billion years to create the earth doesn't change anything about my faith. My faith and my relationship with god is about my soul. the material world around me is the arena in which I am expected to grow and become closer to him. The trials and tribulations of the world are the lessons I am expected to learn. I have been given senses to feel, and a brain to use. I believe that god expects me to use that which he has given me. To do otherwise seems rather rude.

In a nutshell, the whole tale of Moses could be an allegory. What difference does that make to the lessons to be learned? Likewise the Great Flood, and quite honestly the vast majority of the Old Testament. Are Jesus' allegorical lessons any less valid for being allegory's? The only fact that GENUINELY matters in the Bible actually is that Jesus lived and died, and WHY he lived and died. That is my salvation. It doesn't matter how many days it took him to resurect. Doesn't matter which path he took in his travels. Doesn't matter if he had a dozen apostles or twelve hundred. All of that is physical, and it is transitory. The soul is eternal, our relationship with God is eternal, everything else is passing.

Don't sweat the small stuff.

PhinPhan1227

04-13-2009, 06:06 PM

See post above. I am not trying to argue one side, I am simply saying that you cannot say with a straight face that religion has led to the best modes of discovery. Boasting how knowledge was preserved means you also have to own how the Church kept many scientific developments from being spread. Or we could not try and use such tactics in our debate.

Well, I could argue that the study of religion is the study of that which is not immediately known. What seperates man is that we ask "why". My dog is scared of thunder. She doesn't care WHY thunder occurs, only that it does. Man asks those questions, and the folks who actually looked for the answers originally were the folks concerned with religion. Now, just like in any beaurocracy, eventually the enrichment of the organization overcomes the oriinal goals of the organization. Thus elements of the Church stopped exploring science and used what they had learned to increase their power. Other elements of the Church however never turned their backs on critical thinking.

Once again, look into the Jesuits. Better still, talk to one. You want someone who will kick your butt in a debate, talk to a Jesuit. You want someone who will teach you something about rational, analytical thinking, talk to a Jesuit.

Consider this...most of the folks who were responsible for coming up with the scientific method were either educated in a religious institution, or were in fact religious leaders themselves. Don't blame the institution for the beaurocracy which gets in the way of it.

Dolphan7

04-13-2009, 10:59 PM

I thoroughly disagree! Now, for someone like D7 who is a literalist, no, there can be no overlap because of the limitation of a six day creation. For those who do not share that belief however, there is nothing in the bible which prohibits evolution, and there is certainly nothing in evolution which prohibits god setting everything in motion.

Nothing in the bible that contradicts evolution? Let me see, God created man in His image and likeness, and he created woman to be his companion. And if you feel that this wasn't really what happened, then take a look at what Jesus had to say about the first man and woman.

MT 19:4 And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE,
He is referring to Genesis in this verse. He also states in Mat 5:17 That he upholds the OT, which also means he doesn't dispute it. Jesus goes to great lengths to correct some of the Pharrisitical teachings of his day, but nothing about the Genesis account or any OT verse. I would think that by Jesus time if there were any interpretation issue with Creation week, He would have addressed them then. Nothing.

Another thing that prohibits biblical evolution, as you are claiming, is the nature and beginning of sin. Genesis tells us that sin came through Adam, the first man. With sin comes death and suffering. Because of that sin we need a savior from that sin. That is Jesus. According to you sin came into existence through animals. Eon's of death and destruction and suffering, making sin meaningless, and making Jesus meaningless in the process.

RO 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned—Adam and Jesus are linked...

RO 5:16 The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification.
RO 5:17 For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.
RO 5:18 So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.Trivializing Adam, mythologizing Adam, also trivializes Jesus in the process. Not only that but the bible is clear the there is a direct lineage from Adam to Noah, and then Noah to Jesus. This is how it all fits together. Taking away part of the story undermines our way of understanding the bible, and only causes confusion and ultimately apart from God's word.

And there are many other reasons to reject Theistic Evolution. It is a manmade doctrine and should be discarded.

And the current evolutionary view does indeed dismiss God. Modern science seeks to explain our origins from a strictly naturalistic standpoint and does not consider supernatural phenomenon.

eric1589

04-14-2009, 12:03 AM

basically evolution is a theory pieced together by scientists, based upon things that they actually are able to see and test.

you cant say that science is held back because it doesn't include fairytales that you were told by some one else. that's ignorant. a story a PERSON told another PERSON is not something that can be tested.

but to ignore everything that can be observed and discovered simply because it doesn't coincide with your fantasy is absurd.

science is based upon reality. real life. not a dream world. your imagination, or belief, is not weighed into that because there is not one single shred of evidence to support it. basically you just refuse to believe you might be wrong.

just because there is a really old book that says something...doesn't make it true.

just because most of the people of this world believe something....certainly doesn't make it true.

just because the scientific theory of evolution does not allow, or incorporate your religion...does not make it false... not matter how hard YOU WANT IT TO BE.

and where or what is this supernatural phenomena you want science to incorporate into answering the question of how everything we know, came to be? just give us once CREDIBLE instance of any of it. one single shred of EVIDENCE left behind. one little thing that actually exists. that anyone can actually look at, pick up, touch or feel. just one thing that points to religion even having a possibility of being true. an NO, the bible doesn't count. the bible is a book. books are made by people. just like religions are.

and it has to be something physical. a feeling in your heart, or idea in your head does not count. nobody can verify either of these, let alone analyze them or do anything at all scientific with them.

if you cant do any of this. then can you finally admit that your entire argument is irrational. you cant expect people to study the physical world based upon your super natural beliefs that were given to you by other people.

forget about your religion. its holding you back. you are trying to put a puzzle together while looking at the wrong box cover. the picture you are actually working on is NOT the picture in your head. it never will be. you must eventually realize that you are going down the wrong path before you can switch to the correct path.

maybe you don't know what the correct path is. try doing what others have done before you. turn all the pieces over and look at ALL of them from the back. put them ALL on a level playing field. now try to piece things together by how they fit and connect with each other.

don't just grab two different shades of blue and assume they are both part of the water, in the picture. one of them might be part of the sky. you cant force them together simply because you want them to be together. either they fit together properly or they don't.

do you want to know who those people were, that did this before you? those were the people that actually gave us scientific discoveries that CONTRADICTED what religion told us AND proved to be TRUE.

where would we be without science? we would all probably be in church talking about how the earth is the center of the universe, all the planets and the sun orbit the earth, and the earth is floating in a crystal ball.

those are things that used to be believed by man. back when we didn't know any better. those are things that were actually taught in churches. do you see where it gets you when you keep operating under and passing on the same blind faith? nowhere.

those people, before you, went out into the world and did THEIR OWN studies. they didn't just bring the bible with them and try to look up an answer every time they had a question. they didn't take a vague passage and try to translate it to answer their question. they used their own eyes. their own ears and their own minds to discover truths. and those truths led to the biggest discoveries and accomplishments in the history of man kind.

I don't know how your mind works. obviously not like mine does. but I think breaking the bounds of gravity and having people fly space ships for 3 days, at thousands of miles an hour, to travel a quarter of a million miles away and actually get out and walk on the moon...- is MUCH more significant that slaughtering an entire village of innocent people because they don't accept jesus.

at some point you have to realize that you start at step 1 and go from there. you do NOT start at step 1,000,000,000,000 and try to work backwards. and you definitely do NOT throw things outside the realm of possibility into the problem solving.

STOP TRYING TO PUT A JIGSAW PUZZLE TOGETHER WITH LEGOS.

eric1589

04-14-2009, 12:05 AM

And there are many other reasons to reject Theistic Evolution. It is a manmade doctrine and should be discarded.

its just as man made as any and all religion.:woot:
lets discard them all.

Dolphan7

04-14-2009, 12:11 AM

Actually, I believe that the only words God claims to have written personally were the ones etched into the tablets given to Moses. But you know what, if they were transcribed, it wouldn't really matter. Whether they were etched or not doesn't change anything about my faith. Whether Aliens wrote them or not doesn't change anything about my faith. Whether God took eight seconds or eight billion years to create the earth doesn't change anything about my faith. My faith and my relationship with god is about my soul. the material world around me is the arena in which I am expected to grow and become closer to him. The trials and tribulations of the world are the lessons I am expected to learn. I have been given senses to feel, and a brain to use. I believe that god expects me to use that which he has given me. To do otherwise seems rather rude.

In a nutshell, the whole tale of Moses could be an allegory. What difference does that make to the lessons to be learned? Likewise the Great Flood, and quite honestly the vast majority of the Old Testament. Are Jesus' allegorical lessons any less valid for being allegory's? The only fact that GENUINELY matters in the Bible actually is that Jesus lived and died, and WHY he lived and died. That is my salvation. It doesn't matter how many days it took him to resurect. Doesn't matter which path he took in his travels. Doesn't matter if he had a dozen apostles or twelve hundred. All of that is physical, and it is transitory. The soul is eternal, our relationship with God is eternal, everything else is passing.

Don't sweat the small stuff. See the bible does put limits on people. God tells us what the rules are, and we either follow or not. We don't get to pick and choose which parts of His word are not important or subject to interpretation. By removing the bible as an obstacle, what you have done is given yourself the freedom to basically create your own one man religion. That is between you and God. Problem is, since you have removed the limitations of the bible, you don't get to monopolize what the "true" meaning of God is. Nope. Now you could possibly get 7 billion differing interpretations, because without the rule book, it is every man for himself, and whatever each man thinks is right in his own mind, then that is what he believes in. Wonderful isn't it? We can create our own religion! Bravo!. And not only have you created your own religion, you have removed any authority to make any claim as to what is right or wrong, as you have removed the very foundation of right and wrong in God's written word. You have in essence removed the absolute morality and replaced it with your own relative morality.

How do you know anything about Jesus other than the bible that you swear isn't true? Not only that but when you bash God's word, what example are you setting for others that may take your words and fall away from God? Care to ponder just what God thinks about that? It isn't just about Jesus and what he did and why...it is how we respond to those around us. Are you drawing people to God with your words, or are you possibly pushing them away because you yourself have chosen to ignore the written word for your own understanding of what you think God is all about? Are you telling people little things don't matter and not to sweat the small stuff?

Jesus said:

LK 16:10 “ He who is faithful in a very little thing is faithful also in much; and he who is unrighteous in a very little thing is unrighteous also in much.I would worry about the little things my friend. I wouldn't want on my conscience the fact that if you are wrong, which I believe you are, and you caused someone to stumble by changing the meaning of what God says, the fact that God will not look favorably on you for that. Best to keep it on the down low.

Jesus said that we will be known by our fruits.

JN 15:1 “ I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser.
JN 15:2 “Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit, He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit, He prunes it so that it may bear more fruit.
JN 15:3 “ You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you.
JN 15:4 “ Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it abides in the vine, so neither can you unless you abide in Me.
JN 15:5 “I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing.
JN 15:6 “If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned.
JN 15:7 “If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you.
JN 15:8 “My Father is glorified by this, that you bear much fruit, and so prove to be My disciples.
JN 15:9 “Just as the Father has loved Me, I have also loved you; abide in My love.
JN 15:10 “ If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love; just as I have kept My Father’s commandments and abide in His love.

LK 6:43 “ For there is no good tree which produces bad fruit, nor, on the other hand, a bad tree which produces good fruit.
LK 6:44 “ For each tree is known by its own fruit. For men do not gather figs from thorns, nor do they pick grapes from a briar bush.
LK 6:45 “ The good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth what is good; and the evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth what is evil; for his mouth speaks from that which fills his heart.What kind of fruit are you growing? Is compromising God's word with the manmade doctrine of science and evolution bearing good fruit? Is negating the sin of homosexuality in keeping with God's word? Are you a beacon of good christian morals and values? Do people look to you and consider you a good christian man by the way you live your life, how you speak, what you do, where you go etc...?

I would never guess that you were a christian by your actions or your words. And a good christian should not have to cause people to "guess". It should be known. Jesus claims that he wish we were Hot or Cold, not lukewarm. You are very much a man of this world, compromising with science, compromising with sin. Your belief may seem attractive to many as it takes the easy road, the easy path where in whatever one chooses to believe is ok with God. Jesus warns:

MT 7:13 “ Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it.

Cassiopeia

04-14-2009, 01:07 AM

I thoroughly disagree! Now, for someone like D7 who is a literalist, no, there can be no overlap because of the limitation of a six day creation. For those who do not share that belief however, there is nothing in the bible which prohibits evolution, and there is certainly nothing in evolution which prohibits god setting everything in motion.

Look, just because you can give the broad strokes of the mechanism of evolution doesn't mean you are saying anything about the force or forces which put that mechanism into motion. As a religious person I not only recognize the mechanics of nature, I revel in them. Some people find things like turning water into wine miraculous, I point to the simple act of fermentation as being much more impressive, and much more of a sign of gods hand.

In a nutshell, the Theory of Evolution is like knowing the theory of the internal combustion engine. Just because you know the theory doesn't mean you are now the Mercedes Benz corporation.

great points! i come from a family much like Dolphan7, who were bible literalists. we were taught that how could you claim one part of the bible is literal, but another is not. that is what you have to do in order to believe evolution was set in motion by god. if one part of the bible isn't literal, but a life lesson, whats to say everything isn't? thats like opening up a science book, saying that one chapter is literal and correct, but the next chapter is merely a lesson the author was trying to prove, and should be looked at morally not literally. sure, it makes things a lot easier if you take some parts literally and others morally, but that doesn't make it correct! thats what i was taught at least.

i do apologize though. i don't have the knowledge of you and Dolphan7, so i'm afraid i couldn't really get into details about specific verses or anything. i never paid much attention when i was a kid, and i haven't so much as opened one since my freshman year of college.

i love your avatar by the way! stewie is my favorite!

Dolphan7

04-14-2009, 01:34 AM

great points! i come from a family much like Dolphan7, who were bible literalists. we were taught that how could you claim one part of the bible is literal, but another is not. that is what you have to do in order to believe evolution was set in motion by god. if one part of the bible isn't literal, but a life lesson, whats to say everything isn't? thats like opening up a science book, saying that one chapter is literal and correct, but the next chapter is merely a lesson the author was trying to prove, and should be looked at morally not literally. sure, it makes things a lot easier if you take some parts literally and others morally, but that doesn't make it correct! thats what i was taught at least.

i do apologize though. i don't have the knowledge of you and Dolphan7, so i'm afraid i couldn't really get into details about specific verses or anything. i never paid much attention when i was a kid, and i haven't so much as opened one since my freshman year of college.

i love your avatar by the way! stewie is my favorite!Pardon me ma'am, I just want to clear something up. I am not a literalist, but a contextualist. We read the bible in context to what the author meant. That could be literal, or a parable as in Jesus, it could be figurative, it really depends on the context.

The scripture in question is Genesis and Creation Week. We take this literally as there is no indication to take it any other way but literally.

Anyone who suggests it shouldn't be taken literally has an opposing agenda to push in my opinion. And that agenda typically attempts to compromise God's word with modern science and manmade doctrine called evolution. They are trying to fit them together in order to appease and make nice I suppose. But this really didn't become an issue until the 19th century, when evolutionary thought started to propogate. Before then this wasn't an issue. So consider the motivation behind such a belief.

PhinPhan1227

04-14-2009, 10:38 AM

great points! i come from a family much like Dolphan7, who were bible literalists. we were taught that how could you claim one part of the bible is literal, but another is not. that is what you have to do in order to believe evolution was set in motion by god. if one part of the bible isn't literal, but a life lesson, whats to say everything isn't? thats like opening up a science book, saying that one chapter is literal and correct, but the next chapter is merely a lesson the author was trying to prove, and should be looked at morally not literally. sure, it makes things a lot easier if you take some parts literally and others morally, but that doesn't make it correct! thats what i was taught at least.

i do apologize though. i don't have the knowledge of you and Dolphan7, so i'm afraid i couldn't really get into details about specific verses or anything. i never paid much attention when i was a kid, and i haven't so much as opened one since my freshman year of college.

i love your avatar by the way! stewie is my favorite!

Thanks! Anyway, what difference does it make if something in the Bible, other than Jesus himself, was literal or a life lesson? Jesus used parables all the time, were those lessons less valid than they would have been if they had actually taken place? A lesson is a lesson. Whether the facts presented took place as presented or not doesn't negate the lesson. It doesn't alter my faith or relationship with God if an event in the Bible actually took place or was just a story. The result is the same.

PhinPhan1227

04-14-2009, 10:49 AM

Nothing in the bible that contradicts evolution? Let me see, God created man in His image and likeness, and he created woman to be his companion. And if you feel that this wasn't really what happened, then take a look at what Jesus had to say about the first man and woman.

He is referring to Genesis in this verse. He also states in Mat 5:17 That he upholds the OT, which also means he doesn't dispute it. Jesus goes to great lengths to correct some of the Pharrisitical teachings of his day, but nothing about the Genesis account or any OT verse. I would think that by Jesus time if there were any interpretation issue with Creation week, He would have addressed them then. Nothing.

Another thing that prohibits biblical evolution, as you are claiming, is the nature and beginning of sin. Genesis tells us that sin came through Adam, the first man. With sin comes death and suffering. Because of that sin we need a savior from that sin. That is Jesus. According to you sin came into existence through animals. Eon's of death and destruction and suffering, making sin meaningless, and making Jesus meaningless in the process.

Adam and Jesus are linked...

Trivializing Adam, mythologizing Adam, also trivializes Jesus in the process. Not only that but the bible is clear the there is a direct lineage from Adam to Noah, and then Noah to Jesus. This is how it all fits together. Taking away part of the story undermines our way of understanding the bible, and only causes confusion and ultimately apart from God's word.

And there are many other reasons to reject Theistic Evolution. It is a manmade doctrine and should be discarded.

And the current evolutionary view does indeed dismiss God. Modern science seeks to explain our origins from a strictly naturalistic standpoint and does not consider supernatural phenomenon.

Man is created in Gods image because of mans SOUL, not because he walks upright and has less hair than a gorilla. That is also why it is silly to say that sin started with animals, because animals are incapable of sin. Just as the law recognizes, in order to be punishable, an act must be known to have been wrong. Animals have no concept of right and wrong, only punishment and reward. Man is distinct from any animal, and the distinction is in the awareness of WHY a thing happens, and therefore whether that thing is right or wrong. There was an Adam. He was the first hominid to consider whether he should do a thing or not because of the rightness of the thing, not just the risk or reward. And yes, his genetic legacy does go all the way through time to Jesus. The lessons are there, the lessons are valid.

As to how SOME scientists view evolution and its implications, why the heck would I care what they hypothisize anymore than what a born again Christian hypothisises? The science saysa nothing about the source of evolution anymore than it says anything about the source of any other universal constant. Science only says what is, it can't say how it came to be.

Dolphan7

04-14-2009, 12:18 PM

Man is created in Gods image because of mans SOUL, not because he walks upright and has less hair than a gorilla. That is also why it is silly to say that sin started with animals, because animals are incapable of sin. Just as the law recognizes, in order to be punishable, an act must be known to have been wrong. Animals have no concept of right and wrong, only punishment and reward. Man is distinct from any animal, and the distinction is in the awareness of WHY a thing happens, and therefore whether that thing is right or wrong. There was an Adam. He was the first hominid to consider whether he should do a thing or not because of the rightness of the thing, not just the risk or reward. And yes, his genetic legacy does go all the way through time to Jesus. The lessons are there, the lessons are valid.Your rationalizing. Look - you can create this story in your mind if that is how you feel about Creation. But you have absolutely nothing to support your belief. There is no evidence to not take the Genesis account literally. God created everything and called it good. Then Adam ruined it, bringing sin into the world. The result of sin is death, suffering and destruction. Did animals not die during the supposed time of evolution? Was there no destruction and suffering through this process of evolution trying to become perfect? Of course there was. It doesn't matter that they were animals. Your story changes the whole nature of sin and the purpose of Jesus, clear and simple. So if it is all about the lessons, you missed the biggest one! It isn't about learning life lessons. It is about salvation through Jesus Christ. We are broken. We are all sinners thanks to Adam. All are in need of salvation. That salvation comes from God alone, not from our deeds or our actions, less anyone boast (Eph 2:8-9). If you read the NT you will find two recurring themes. Getting right with God though belief, repentance, confession and baptism. The other is living right for God in our actions and our deeds. We are accountable for how we live, what we say, what we do etc...and we are responsible for those who may stumble as a result of our actions or words or deeds, to be sure. You may feel you have the right view on God, but to lead others in this way could cause them to be led astray. That is on you my friend. God will hold you accountable for those souls.

MT 18:7 “Woe to the world because of its stumbling blocks! For it is inevitable that stumbling blocks come; but woe to that man through whom the stumbling block comes!
As to how SOME scientists view evolution and its implications, why the heck would I care what they hypothesize anymore than what a born again Christian hypothesizes? The science says nothing about the source of evolution anymore than it says anything about the source of any other universal constant. Science only says what is, it can't say how it came to be.I am glad you realize the limitations of science. Sadly science doesn't know it's own limitations as it clearly attempts to define our origins without the need of a creator. From abiogenesis to evolution, science is only interested in natural explanations.

PhinPhan1227

04-14-2009, 01:07 PM

See the bible does put limits on people. God tells us what the rules are, and we either follow or not. We don't get to pick and choose which parts of His word are not important or subject to interpretation. By removing the bible as an obstacle, what you have done is given yourself the freedom to basically create your own one man religion. That is between you and God. Problem is, since you have removed the limitations of the bible, you don't get to monopolize what the "true" meaning of God is. Nope. Now you could possibly get 7 billion differing interpretations, because without the rule book, it is every man for himself, and whatever each man thinks is right in his own mind, then that is what he believes in. Wonderful isn't it? We can create our own religion! Bravo!. And not only have you created your own religion, you have removed any authority to make any claim as to what is right or wrong, as you have removed the very foundation of right and wrong in God's written word. You have in essence removed the absolute morality and replaced it with your own relative morality.

How do you know anything about Jesus other than the bible that you swear isn't true? Not only that but when you bash God's word, what example are you setting for others that may take your words and fall away from God? Care to ponder just what God thinks about that? It isn't just about Jesus and what he did and why...it is how we respond to those around us. Are you drawing people to God with your words, or are you possibly pushing them away because you yourself have chosen to ignore the written word for your own understanding of what you think God is all about? Are you telling people little things don't matter and not to sweat the small stuff?

Jesus said:
I would worry about the little things my friend. I wouldn't want on my conscience the fact that if you are wrong, which I believe you are, and you caused someone to stumble by changing the meaning of what God says, the fact that God will not look favorably on you for that. Best to keep it on the down low.

Jesus said that we will be known by our fruits.

What kind of fruit are you growing? Is compromising God's word with the manmade doctrine of science and evolution bearing good fruit? Is negating the sin of homosexuality in keeping with God's word? Are you a beacon of good christian morals and values? Do people look to you and consider you a good christian man by the way you live your life, how you speak, what you do, where you go etc...?

I would never guess that you were a christian by your actions or your words. And a good christian should not have to cause people to "guess". It should be known. Jesus claims that he wish we were Hot or Cold, not lukewarm. You are very much a man of this world, compromising with science, compromising with sin. Your belief may seem attractive to many as it takes the easy road, the easy path where in whatever one chooses to believe is ok with God. Jesus warns:

The easy road? The easy path? My way actually puts responsability for my actions on ME. If I say that a thing is wrong, it's because I believe it's wrong. The mind and the ethos that God gives us all tells me right and wrong. I havew never, sine reaching anything close to adulthood, done something "wrong" without knowing that it was wrong. The Bible has helped teach me lots of lessons. Shown me ways of doing things I might not have thought of otherwise. In short, it is a font of wisdom and teaching. But right and wrong is pretty easy to spot, even when there are ambiguous aspects.

But when I say that a thing is wrong, I am not going to use the bible as my excuse. It's not my shield to excuse hurting people. I can't hide behind it to cause people pain. If I point an accusitory finger, it is coming from my hand, I have no buffer to salve my conscience.

Every "sin" in the Bible makes sense except one. Name the sin, I can show you the bruise. But I can't find the bruise in two people falling in love and doing everything that makes a relationship worth having. I REFUSE to condemn people, tell them that God will turn away from them, and then use the Bible as the excuse for that action. If I cause a bruise, I caused that bruise. If I have to stand before God and explain that action, I may very well wind up in the wrong. But God knows my heart, and he knows why I am doing it. I trust in his judgement.

When you stand before God and he asks you why you caused pain in this world, he will also know your heart. I wonder how "I was just following orders" will work for you.

PhinPhan1227

04-14-2009, 02:02 PM

Your rationalizing. Look - you can create this story in your mind if that is how you feel about Creation. But you have absolutely nothing to support your belief. There is no evidence to not take the Genesis account literally. God created everything and called it good. Then Adam ruined it, bringing sin into the world. The result of sin is death, suffering and destruction. Did animals not die during the supposed time of evolution? Was there no destruction and suffering through this process of evolution trying to become perfect? Of course there was. It doesn't matter that they were animals. Your story changes the whole nature of sin and the purpose of Jesus, clear and simple. So if it is all about the lessons, you missed the biggest one! It isn't about learning life lessons. It is about salvation through Jesus Christ. We are broken. We are all sinners thanks to Adam. All are in need of salvation. That salvation comes from God alone, not from our deeds or our actions, less anyone boast (Eph 2:8-9). If you read the NT you will find two recurring themes. Getting right with God though belief, repentance, confession and baptism. The other is living right for God in our actions and our deeds. We are accountable for how we live, what we say, what we do etc...and we are responsible for those who may stumble as a result of our actions or words or deeds, to be sure. You may feel you have the right view on God, but to lead others in this way could cause them to be led astray. That is on you my friend. God will hold you accountable for those souls.
I am glad you realize the limitations of science. Sadly science doesn't know it's own limitations as it clearly attempts to define our origins without the need of a creator. From abiogenesis to evolution, science is only interested in natural explanations.

Actually, there's a ton of scientific evidence to not take the genesis account literally. As to the rest, there are several instances of the Bible getting things not quite right. Look at the LEviticus account of leprosy. You have the bible telling rabbi's to isolate lepers and cast them out when science now knows that lepers aren't hazerdous to others beyond the first few day. But the MESSAGE of examination and care around illness is clear and useful. Not EXACTLY correct, but still valuable.

As to your description of "science", I wasn't aware that "science" was a thinking being that acted. I thought it was a methodology practiced by an INCREDIBLY diverse group of people, PLENTY of whom are believers in one god or another. But again, it's always easier to paint the opposition with a broad brush.

Lastlty, AGAIN, man is distinct from all other creatures in our knowledge of good versus evil. There is no disagreement with the concepts of the Bible. There is no reduction in the value of the lessons. Man is flawed. He knows what is right or wrong, and STILL does what is wrong. Thus the need for Jesus' intervention. NONE of that is changed by man evolving from lower primates. It makes NO difference whether man was created directly from dust or went through a few billion steps first. The distinction is still there.

Dolphan7

04-14-2009, 02:39 PM

The easy road? The easy path? My way actually puts responsibility for my actions on ME. If I say that a thing is wrong, it's because I believe it's wrong. The mind and the ethos that God gives us all tells me right and wrong. I have never, since reaching anything close to adulthood, done something "wrong" without knowing that it was wrong. The Bible has helped teach me lots of lessons. Shown me ways of doing things I might not have thought of otherwise. In short, it is a font of wisdom and teaching. But right and wrong is pretty easy to spot, even when there are ambiguous aspects. You don't get to decide what is wrong or right. No more than any other human being. That comes from God alone. What you "believe" is irrelevant to God. We are all responsible for our actions, so you are not alone in that regard. But it is the actions in response to God's word that we are responsible for. So you can set up your own "rules" so to speak, and hold yourself accountable to those rules, but God doesn't care about your rules. God cares about His rules and how you respond to Him and his rules. See the difference?

PR 3:5 Trust in the LORD with all your heart
And do not lean on your own understanding.
PR 3:6 In all your ways acknowledge Him,
And He will make your paths straight.
PR 3:7 Do not be wise in your own eyes;
Fear the LORD and turn away from evil.
But when I say that a thing is wrong, I am not going to use the bible as my excuse. It's not my shield to excuse hurting people. I can't hide behind it to cause people pain. If I point an accusatory finger, it is coming from my hand, I have no buffer to salve my conscience. If you are not going to use the bible as your basis of right and wrong, then you have no foundation to claim what is right or wrong, any more than any other human being. You have created your own morality, which is fine, but that morality is only good for you. It doesn't apply to anyone else. I can say that your view on gays is wrong. I base that on God's word, the bible. You can't say it is right or wrong outside your own self, because you have no foundation outside yourself to appeal to as a standard. God is the standard in my life. Take it or leave it. It isn't an excuse as you would like to claim. It is reality.

Every "sin" in the Bible makes sense except one. Name the sin, I can show you the bruise. But I can't find the bruise in two people falling in love and doing everything that makes a relationship worth having. I REFUSE to condemn people, tell them that God will turn away from them, and then use the Bible as the excuse for that action. If I cause a bruise, I caused that bruise. If I have to stand before God and explain that action, I may very well wind up in the wrong. But God knows my heart, and he knows why I am doing it. I trust in his judgement. YOu shoudln't condemn anyone, for anything, no matter if you believe it to be true or not. I think you make no distinction between identifying a sin, and how to treat people that are involved in that sin. We are not to condemn people for their sins. That is God's job. All we are to do is tell people the truth and hopefully guide them to a restored relationship with God. Christians who do condemn will have to answer for their actions on an individual basis. That is between them and God. I can only concern myself with how I react to the world I live in, not how others do. Identifying what the sins are is far different than responding to people involved in those sins. The first one is simply being honest and upfront. The second one is how we speak about those sins and how we treat those who are involved in sin. They are two different things. You are implying that simply calling something a sin is wrong. I can't go there. But I would agree that many times people do hurt other people by how they react to sin, condemning and shunning etc....It happens. But not by me.

Your view on homosexuality is opposed to God's view. You have basically rejected God's word and instituted a set of values to call your own. You don't understand God's motives or reason for calling this a sin. Neither do I. I would never question the creator of the known universe. I figure he has his reasons. My guess is that he created man and woman and that is the way he set it up. Anything contrary to this is not according to his plan or his will, so it is a sin. But because you don't understand why, doesn't mean you can make up your own why. Read Proverbs. Especially key on verses that talk about wisdom and about fools. They are almost contrasted against each other every time. Wisdom comes from God, fools get their wisdom from their own understanding, that is pretty much the gist of it. I rely on God's wisdom, not my own. Those who rely on their own understanding are taking the place of God in away, they are telling God - "God, you got this one wrong, let me handle it from here".

It is a terrible thing to fall into the hands of the living God (Heb 10:31)

When you stand before God and he asks you why you caused pain in this world, he will also know your heart. I wonder how "I was just following orders" will work for you.I have no problem standing before God and explaining that I held to His truth, and told people His truth, even if they didn't want to believe it, or if that truth hurt their feelings. If people reject God because of the truth that is one thing. If people reject God because they are being told something false, that that is an entirely different circumstance. Jesus says in this case it is better to have a millstone hung around your neck and thrown into the ocean and drowned.

Dolphan7

04-14-2009, 02:57 PM

Actually, there's a ton of scientific evidence to not take the genesis account literally. As to the rest, there are several instances of the Bible getting things not quite right. Look at the LEviticus account of leprosy. You have the bible telling rabbi's to isolate lepers and cast them out when science now knows that lepers aren't hazerdous to others beyond the first few day. But the MESSAGE of examination and care around illness is clear and useful. Not EXACTLY correct, but still valuable. Actually there is plenty of scientific conjecture, and theory and opinion. Huge difference.
And there you go again, disputing the bible based on what science says today. How does science know what God's "complete" reason was for isolating lepers? Maybe it was contagious then, and through adaptation became less and less contagious to the point of benign. Possible? Open wounds certainly would have been a cause of diseases and infection not related to leprosy. Would you touch someone with an open wound oozing yellow puss? Maybe contagious wasn't a concern for God, maybe he had other reasons? Ever read about what a woman has to go through during her monthly or after pregnancy? God set these rules up for non-medical reasons possibly, simply to teach us how hard it is to be perfect in order to overcome our sinful nature, which is impossible. Thus the need for a savior.

As to your description of "science", I wasn't aware that "science" was a thinking being that acted. I thought it was a methodology practiced by an INCREDIBLY diverse group of people, PLENTY of whom are believers in one god or another. But again, it's always easier to paint the opposition with a broad brush. Scientific methodology seeks naturalistic answers to questions. They don't include God or evidence of Gods creation. Better?

Lastlty, AGAIN, man is distinct from all other creatures in our knowledge of good versus evil. There is no disagreement with the concepts of the Bible. There is no reduction in the value of the lessons. Man is flawed. He knows what is right or wrong, and STILL does what is wrong. Thus the need for Jesus' intervention. NONE of that is changed by man evolving from lower primates. It makes NO difference whether man was created directly from dust or went through a few billion steps first. The distinction is still there.Nothing changes....other than the fact you accuse God of lying. Other than that we are good to go.

Marino613

04-14-2009, 04:41 PM

This is a great conversation. Here are my usually too long winded points to add:

- Theism and Evolution are not necessarily contradictory - One can believe in God and accept Evolution. For example, without a religious tradition, one can philosophically come to the belief in a creator God who is active in the world based on say Neo-Platonic thought or some mystical epiphany while still accepting Evolution. Or there may be a religious Theistic tradition that does not have a creation story that is threatened by Evolution (in some ways an Old Universe works very well with common Vishnaic Hindu cosmology). Therefore there is no inherent contradiction.

- Theistic Evolution isn’t a spiritually or religiously neutral idea – Whether accurate or not, the idea that we are created directly through a miraculous act of God and not through gradual natural processes is a theologically powerful notion that Theistic Evolution downplays. Moreover, religions generally have powerful Truth claims and assume that their sacred texts and traditions have all the answers. To accept that a radical new development in human thought is true and yet was unknown by the Faithful of previous generations is a challenge to authoritative religious institutions, especially in matters like where we come from.

- Mixing Theism and Evolution is only an inherent conflict for Religions that accept a literal account of any creation tradition as authoritative. Most commonly, Christian Fundamentalism which accepts literally based on what they believe to be the only possible interpretation of their most sacred and holy text that the world was created in 6 days. Many Muslims have a similar concern. Other faith traditions can and do have different understandings of the origin of the world, and those who take them literally would not accept Evolution. Alternatively, some faith traditions, even those that accept the bible, have had fewer problems accepting Evolution even by more traditional members of the community because a literal read of Genesis is not an essential aspect of their faith.

- The claim that all attempts at reading Genesis as a metaphor, or having an interpretation that does not accord with a literal 6 days of creation as being a purely post 19th century evolution is flat out wrong. There are several examples of pre-modern alternatives to a literal 6 day view of Creation within Biblical traditions of both Judaism and Christianity (will provide sources and links separately! This is already too long a post). I am not claiming they are necessarily correct in their interpretations, but this is far from a modern phenomenon.

- The concern that metaphorical readings of a sacred text is inconsistent because "how do you choose one section over another" is only a problem for fundamentalists with a text they believe is clear. First of all, if the text is in its own right vague then literalism becomes impossible anyway, therefore it may be the text itself demands a metaphorical read. Moreover, Fundamentalism is not nor has it ever been the only form of mainstream Theism. One easy alternative example is what some will call Traditional Orthodoxy, placing authority in religious tradition sometimes even in the face of a canonical text. Orthodox Judaism for example maintains that along with the Torah (the first five books), they were given a set of traditions as well as interpretive guidelines some of which we might find highly fanciful. As a result, in addition to several literal interpretations, there are also plenty of Jewish traditions based on far out interpretations as well (if you would like some examples ask. again this post is too long). Nevertheless, if you are from a tradition that interprets a certain portion of the text figuratively, then your basis for choosing to view it as metaphor is your tradition itself. Traditional Orthodoxies defend this practice by pointing out that tradition is usually the very reason to accept the canonical text to begin with.

Dolphan7

04-14-2009, 04:59 PM

Well no matter what, if we all get through the Pearly Gates, some of us will be directed to the line forming immediately to the left titled "Creation Week - Refresher Course".

And the funny thing is we will all think it is the other guy that needs to go!:lol:

Marino613

04-14-2009, 05:08 PM

Obviously Wikipedia is not the (pun) Gospel Truth, but here is an interesting article that highlights some of the ways in which people have interpreted genesis either literally or figuratively throughout history.

Well no matter what, if we all get through the Pearly Gates, some of us will be directed to the line forming immediately to the left titled "Creation Week - Refresher Course".

And the funny thing is we will all think it is the other guy that needs to go!:lol:

Dude, if we ALL get through the pearly gates then most of us will need a refresher course on why some of us made it there in the first place :rimshot:

Dolphan7

04-14-2009, 05:37 PM

Dude, if we ALL get through the pearly gates then most of us will need a refresher course on why some of us made it there in the first place :rimshot::lol2:

eric1589

04-15-2009, 12:30 AM

Pardon me ma'am, I just want to clear something up. I am not a literalist, but a contextualist. We read the bible in context to what the author meant. That could be literal, or a parable as in Jesus, it could be figurative, it really depends on the context.

The scripture in question is Genesis and Creation Week. We take this literally as there is no indication to take it any other way but literally.

Anyone who suggests it shouldn't be taken literally has an opposing agenda to push in my opinion. And that agenda typically attempts to compromise God's word with modern science and manmade doctrine called evolution. They are trying to fit them together in order to appease and make nice I suppose. But this really didn't become an issue until the 19th century, when evolutionary thought started to propogate. Before then this wasn't an issue. So consider the motivation behind such a belief.

wait a minute. are you digging yourself a loophole there? a contexualist? context is not something defined. especially in a 2,000 year old book. is there a sentence before each chapter telling you what the context is? if not. that's a nice hole you dug there.

"Anyone who suggests it shouldn't be taken literally has an opposing agenda to push in my opinion."

so you are immediately opposed to anything that isn't what you want to hear? its great to see you put it in your own words. i think we have all drawn that conclusion on our own, already.

"And that agenda typically attempts to compromise God's word with modern science and manmade doctrine called evolution. "

here is yet another lock on the door keeping you close minded. right here we can see that you 100% are convinced that it is god's word. you completely overlook the fact that is more then probable that everything you believe is just as made as evolution. in fact it is more likely that your religion is man made then the theory of evolution. ill explain more after your next unbelievable statement.

"But this really didn't become an issue until the 19th century, when evolutionary thought started to propogate. Before then this wasn't an issue. So consider the motivation behind such a belief."

how about you consider where society, technology and science were all back then compared to the boom they have all taken since then. telescopes, microscopes computers,etc. astronomy, biology, physics etc. just think for a minute how complex each one of those things are. think about how much they have all advanced in the time frame you are speaking of.
now you must honestly laugh when you think of this and re-read your statement, which sounds as though you are implying some kind of recent, deceitful agenda against god.

eric1589

04-15-2009, 12:45 AM

The easy road? The easy path? My way actually puts responsability for my actions on ME. If I say that a thing is wrong, it's because I believe it's wrong. The mind and the ethos that God gives us all tells me right and wrong. I havew never, sine reaching anything close to adulthood, done something "wrong" without knowing that it was wrong. The Bible has helped teach me lots of lessons. Shown me ways of doing things I might not have thought of otherwise. In short, it is a font of wisdom and teaching. But right and wrong is pretty easy to spot, even when there are ambiguous aspects.

But when I say that a thing is wrong, I am not going to use the bible as my excuse. It's not my shield to excuse hurting people. I can't hide behind it to cause people pain. If I point an accusitory finger, it is coming from my hand, I have no buffer to salve my conscience.

Every "sin" in the Bible makes sense except one. Name the sin, I can show you the bruise. But I can't find the bruise in two people falling in love and doing everything that makes a relationship worth having. I REFUSE to condemn people, tell them that God will turn away from them, and then use the Bible as the excuse for that action. If I cause a bruise, I caused that bruise.....

you lost me after that point.

PhinPhan1227

04-15-2009, 01:48 PM

Actually there is plenty of scientific conjecture, and theory and opinion. Huge difference.
And there you go again, disputing the bible based on what science says today. How does science know what God's "complete" reason was for isolating lepers? Maybe it was contagious then, and through adaptation became less and less contagious to the point of benign. Possible? Open wounds certainly would have been a cause of diseases and infection not related to leprosy. Would you touch someone with an open wound oozing yellow puss? Maybe contagious wasn't a concern for God, maybe he had other reasons? Ever read about what a woman has to go through during her monthly or after pregnancy? God set these rules up for non-medical reasons possibly, simply to teach us how hard it is to be perfect in order to overcome our sinful nature, which is impossible. Thus the need for a savior.
Scientific methodology seeks naturalistic answers to questions. They don't include God or evidence of Gods creation. Better?

Nothing changes....other than the fact you accuse God of lying. Other than that we are good to go.

D7, if you accuse me again of doing something I didn't do, this is no longer going to be a friendly disussion. I never accused God of anything. I accused man of lying, but that is hardly a revelation, mankind lies all the time. It's one of our most basic skills.

As to the rest, leprosy is no longer the same leprosy? I believe that the amount of time leprosy is contagious has been known for quite a long time. I don't think that it is that mutable of an illness. In fact it's pretty freaking specific. And isolating a person forever because of an illness which is no longer dangerous seems like a pretty rotten way to teach a lesson.

Look, even for the most die hard literalist, the Bible doesn't give clear cut, spelled out, day to day instructions on how to get through life. Interpretation is needed. If it wasn't than there would be no reason for biblical study, you could follow it like stereo instructions. As such, when you make a declaration that something is a sin, according to your interpretation of the Bible, you are the man on the spot. You can claim that you are only expressing Gods will, but you are still the one doing it. When you say or write that homosexuality is an abomination, you are the one saying it.

And you can claim that you are only repeating the word of God all day if you like. That doesn't in any way abrogate your responsability for your actions. God gave us a brain for a reason. God expects us to use it. God has given us guidelines to follow, but God expects us to make them work in the real world. And I refuse to hide behind those guidelines in order to cause another person needless pain.

PhinPhan1227

04-15-2009, 01:49 PM

you lost me after that point.

Simple really. I am responsible for my actions. I cannot and will not use the Bible as an excuse for them.

Dolphan7

04-15-2009, 05:08 PM

D7, if you accuse me again of doing something I didn't do, this is no longer going to be a friendly disussion. I never accused God of anything. I accused man of lying, but that is hardly a revelation, mankind lies all the time. It's one of our most basic skills. Aren't you the one who suggested that God purposely told the Jews creation took 6 days because you didn't think they would understand millions of years of time? Isn't that lying? I am just basing my words on what you said. But I tell you what, I will not accuse you of saying that God is a liar the very moment you stop accusing me of hiding behind God's words, and purposely causing harm to people. Fair enough Dude?

As to the rest, leprosy is no longer the same leprosy? I believe that the amount of time leprosy is contagious has been known for quite a long time. I don't think that it is that mutable of an illness. In fact it's pretty freaking specific. And isolating a person forever because of an illness which is no longer dangerous seems like a pretty rotten way to teach a lesson. Isolating forever? Whatever this disease was was not chronic. Read Leviticus. It gives instructions of how to cleanse a leper, and his house, once the disease is gone. It gives credence to this not being leprosy at all, but some other disease. The point though is that they were following God's direction. God has His way of handling things, sometimes the people of the time didn't understand that entirely, but they believed it and followed it nonetheless. Faith. God defines what is sinful. We may not understand fully why, but by faith we follow.

Look, even for the most die hard literalist, the Bible doesn't give clear cut, spelled out, day to day instructions on how to get through life. Interpretation is needed. If it wasn't than there would be no reason for biblical study, you could follow it like stereo instructions. As such, when you make a declaration that something is a sin, according to your interpretation of the Bible, you are the man on the spot. You can claim that you are only expressing Gods will, but you are still the one doing it. When you say or write that homosexuality is an abomination, you are the one saying it. The bible does give day to day instructions on how to live life, and to the fullest. Every issue or problem or challenge I have ever faced in life as a christian, the bible has already addressed. It is a great tool in helping people cope with the sinful world we live in. It provides relevant answers to complicated issues. Now it may not do that for you, but that isn't due to anything lacking in the bible, but more to do with the man who doesn't trust the bible for his daily bread. Continued study of the bible is a must for any christian. I learn new stuff all the time. It is a lifelong study.

So declaring that something is a sin is wrong in your book? So basically we shouldn't mention anything about what is wrong because it may hurt someones feelings? Does that make sense?

And you can claim that you are only repeating the word of God all day if you like. That doesn't in any way abrogate your responsibility for your actions. God gave us a brain for a reason. God expects us to use it. God has given us guidelines to follow, but God expects us to make them work in the real world. And I refuse to hide behind those guidelines in order to cause another person needless pain.Once again, saying and declaring that something is a sin, that God has already determined, is wrong and causing this needless pain? Well then we should just not say anything about what is wrong then. We don't want to offend anyone, especially those who are involved in blatant sins. The lady who murdered that girl in California, can't say anything wrong about that. And that guy who robbed a bank in Salt Lake City, can't say that was wrong. Because you know people want to do what they want to do and they don't want to be told that it is wrong. That is how you are coming off, don't know if you realize that.

My responsibility under God is to live my life according to His laws, and to treat others as I would myself. When I screw up I want those close to me to tell me so that I can make the necessary steps to avoid it in the future. I want them to tell me the truth. I want them to be honest with me. They can't do that if they are handcuffed by your pharisitical view that it may offend me or make me feel bad by telling me that I was wrong. Based on your own view, you shouldn't even be in here telling me that I am wrong. You haven't addressed the difference between identifying sin, and condemning someone for that sin. Huge difference between the two. While we disagree that we are to identify sin when we see it, we can agree that condemning anyone involved in that sin is God's job, not ours. Not as easy as it sounds, but that isn't our job.

Hey look if you want to live your life hiding from the bible and it's accountability by being afraid to say homosexuality is a sin, that is your call. But to tell others that according to your isolated view of God, that being Gay is ok with God....is an entirely different issue that has eternal significance not only to you, but to the one you are speaking to. That is between you and God. I certainly wouldn't want that on my conscience.

Which is worse....telling someone they are involved in what God's considers a sin, and leave it up to that person to either reject that or make the necessary changes....leaving it up to them and them alone

or....

telling someone that what they are doing is fine with God, allowing them to live their life thinking they are ok, and they find out in the long run (death) that they were wrong, but finding out a little too late to repent, and implicating the one who told them it was ok.

To me this is a no brainer.

Your belief is based on sin having a victim, or a bruise. You are attempting to make your views God's views. It doesn't work that way, it only works the other way. God gives the rules, we either follow them or reject them. At this point it appears you are rejecting God's rules. That is on you.

God defines sin. We may not understand why, but by faith we believe God is right and we follow. We don't doubt God. We don't question God. We don't take what we want and leave the rest. God wants all of us, or none of us, not something in between. Jesus said "I wish that you were Hot or Cold, instead you are lukewarm and I spit you out of my mouth". It has to be a terrible thing to be spit out of the mouth of the one true God.

eric1589

04-16-2009, 12:24 AM

Simple really. I am responsible for my actions. I cannot and will not use the Bible as an excuse for them.

no, that was a joke buddy. i stopped agreeing with you when you got churchy.

syborg

04-16-2009, 04:22 PM

no, that was a joke buddy. i stopped agreeing with you when you got churchy.

(CNN) -- Beneath an Antarctic glacier in a cold, airless pool that never sees the sun seems like an unusual place to search for life.

tylerdolphin

04-16-2009, 10:30 PM

If this doesnt support evolution I dont know what does.

Dolphan7

04-17-2009, 12:46 AM

If this doesnt support evolution I dont know what does.
How? Please explain. Because bacteria trapped under ice for millions of years is still......bacteria. Go figure.

tylerdolphin

04-17-2009, 12:53 AM

How? Please explain. Because bacteria trapped under ice for millions of years is still......bacteria. Go figure.
If there was a great flood, there is no way they exist. They would have surely died off in the flood, there would be no ice for them to live in. For them to have derived from other bacteria post-flood would be marco-evolution, seeing as they metabolize a completely different substance than anything on Earth.

Sure, this does not directly prove evolution...but it casts doubt on the only reason evolution is not accepted - a literal Genesis account.

Dolphan7

04-17-2009, 10:44 AM

If there was a great flood, there is no way they exist. They would have surely died off in the flood, there would be no ice for them to live in. For them to have derived from other bacteria post-flood would be marco-evolution, seeing as they metabolize a completely different substance than anything on Earth.

Sure, this does not directly prove evolution...but it casts doubt on the only reason evolution is not accepted - a literal Genesis account.You are stuck in uniformitarian thinking again. Why would you assume this bacteria needed this specific environment always? This is how the media and the science publications get people to "believe". This article is nothing more than an opinion piece. There is no way to tell how old this bacteria is, where it came from, how it adapted etc.....

How does this cast doubt on Genesis? Can you explain that? Actually it fits perfectly with the Genesis account.

eric1589

04-17-2009, 04:59 PM

d7.

the things you say sometimes. it seems as though you are being facetious because of the ridiculous nature of what you say. its so bad, I find it hard to believe that you even believe what you say.

bottom line is you are using a 2,000 year old book to argue against everything that is discovered in current times. just think about how much people knew when that book was written. think about how much people know today. think about the group of people with ONE MIND SET, that wrote that book. think of the THOUSANDS OF DIFFERENT people with DIFFERENT mind sets today, that contribute to the study of evolution.

you argue against your peers, in a highly advanced civilization, because you refuse to believe that it is even possible that your religion is false.

your religion might make you feel good inside, but if you ever need medical treatment, prayer isn't going to save your life. evolutionary studies actually lead to discoveries that help save people's lives. yet you argue against the entire field simply because it would mean that you are wrong about your beliefs.

evidence of anything certainly isn't what is holding you back. there is plenty of things available to show you which side of this argument is more logical and beneficial to us. but you choose to ignore it. you ask for outlandish evidence that you already know, ahead of time, does not exist. subconsciously, your ego is what is holding you back. just let go of the fear of being wrong about something. it doesn't hurt that bad to be wrong. I used to be wrong too.

fact is that religious teaching actually evolve because of scientific discoveries. science has NEVER evolved because of religious discoveries.
do acknowledge that it is possible that the bible is NOT the word of god?
do acknowledge that it is possible that the bible was just written by other men?
what makes you believe, so strongly and blindly, that is actually the word of god?
what have you seen with your own eyes that made you think this was true?
everything... EVERY SINGLE THING you think you know about religion or origins is told to you by other people. people that are just as infallible as you. people just as infallible as anyone!
I cant think of anything that would make you believe the bible is gods word other then people telling you so. because there certainly is no evidence pointing to any of it being true. so this entire argument is rooted to what makes you believe. people with 2,000 year old story and no evidence, or people with a 150 year old story with mounds of evidence.

syborg

04-17-2009, 06:44 PM

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

You seem to refuse our religion (I prefer the term faith) is real. .

It may be a 2000 yr old book but the guidelines are still relevent today and the bible stands up to the test of authenticity and accuracy time and again. . IT unlike your science does not change or falter. . does not waver in its opinion or fact. . it is set. .

And IF YOU take the TIME to study properly. .you will see there is plenty of FACTUAL evidence for the bible and Christ. .

eric1589

04-18-2009, 12:04 AM

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

the bible stands up to the test of authenticity and accuracy time and again. . IT unlike your science does not change or falter. . does not waver in its opinion or fact. . it is set. .

And IF YOU take the TIME to study properly. .you will see there is plenty of FACTUAL evidence for the bible and Christ. .

what test does it stand up?
it certainly doesn't stand up to any test of any of those events ever happening. it doesn't stand up to any test about it actually being gods word. the bible doesn't stand up to ANY tests like that because it cant be tested in that manor. that is why IT will never be a part of science.

science changes because it is ongoing research and discovery. to expect it not to change is beyond foolish aspirations.

please share some of this "factual evidence" i swear, you theists misuse those terms so much. did they teach you the definition of "fact" and "evidence" in church? i bet anything you show me is going to be neither fact nor evidence.

tylerdolphin

04-18-2009, 03:42 AM

You are stuck in uniformitarian thinking again. Why would you assume this bacteria needed this specific environment always? This is how the media and the science publications get people to "believe". This article is nothing more than an opinion piece. There is no way to tell how old this bacteria is, where it came from, how it adapted etc.....

How does this cast doubt on Genesis? Can you explain that? Actually it fits perfectly with the Genesis account.
For them to live in any other environment would be macro evolution! Look at how they live. You are just rationalizing here.

syborg

04-18-2009, 08:58 AM

what test does it stand up?
it certainly doesn't stand up to any test of any of those events ever happening. it doesn't stand up to any test about it actually being gods word. the bible doesn't stand up to ANY tests like that because it cant be tested in that manor. that is why IT will never be a part of science.

science changes because it is ongoing research and discovery. to expect it not to change is beyond foolish aspirations.

please share some of this "factual evidence" i swear, you theists misuse those terms so much. did they teach you the definition of "fact" and "evidence" in church? i bet anything you show me is going to be neither fact nor evidence.

The bible is the inspired word of God. . remember that there are tribes and peoples that recount the accurate retelling of events to upcoming generations. . this is how experiences were shared years ago. . they were extremely accurate. . factor in that God himself was the inspiration and driving force behind the retelling and writing of the pages ..

Look. . the proof is in the pudding. . No one has ever successfully refuted the Bible. Many mock the Bible but avoid challenging it point by point. No one who has done in-depth research, honestly examining the evidence for the Bible's inspiration and truthfulness, has been able to disprove the Bible.

History records many who set out to disprove the Bible, who instead became believers. Our Bible is composed of 66 books, by about 40 different writers of various backgrounds, living during a period of about 1,600 years -- yet they present one message. Such a miracle can only be explained by there being one divine Author, who was in control of all these human writers.

The Bible writers came from many walks of life, including kings, peasants, philosophers, fishermen, herdsmen, poets, statesmen, scholars, soldiers, priests, prophets, a tax collector, a tentmaking rabbi, and a Gentile doctor.

The Bible was written in three different languages: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.

The writings contained in the Bible belong to a great variety of literary types including history, law, poetry, educational discourses, parables, biography, personal correspondence, and prophecy.

Books written by men have no unity of thought on even one subject. Some of them invariably disagree with others. But there is perfect unity between the books of the Bible .. which speak of hundreds of subjects in many fields. There is no contradiction among them.

Who but God could produce such a book?

Hundreds of prophecies of future events were recorded in the Bible .. some of them centuries before fulfillment.. and not one detail of any of them has ever failed!

No other "religious book" foretells the future. The Old Testament, written over a 1,000 year period, contains several hundred references to the coming Messiah .. all of which were fulfilled exactly in Jesus Christ.

The chance that all these predictions could come true exactly as written is beyond most human's comprehension, giving to any honest enquirer undeniable proof that God inspired the writing of the prophecies in the Bible.

Locke

04-18-2009, 10:29 AM

The bible is the inspired word of God. . remember that there are tribes and peoples that recount the accurate retelling of events to upcoming generations. . this is how experiences were shared years ago. . they were extremely accurate. . factor in that God himself was the inspiration and driving force behind the retelling and writing of the pages ..

Look. . the proof is in the pudding. . No one has ever successfully refuted the Bible. Many mock the Bible but avoid challenging it point by point. No one who has done in-depth research, honestly examining the evidence for the Bible's inspiration and truthfulness, has been able to disprove the Bible.

History records many who set out to disprove the Bible, who instead became believers. Our Bible is composed of 66 books, by about 40 different writers of various backgrounds, living during a period of about 1,600 years -- yet they present one message. Such a miracle can only be explained by there being one divine Author, who was in control of all these human writers.

The Bible writers came from many walks of life, including kings, peasants, philosophers, fishermen, herdsmen, poets, statesmen, scholars, soldiers, priests, prophets, a tax collector, a tentmaking rabbi, and a Gentile doctor.

The Bible was written in three different languages: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.

The writings contained in the Bible belong to a great variety of literary types including history, law, poetry, educational discourses, parables, biography, personal correspondence, and prophecy.

Books written by men have no unity of thought on even one subject. Some of them invariably disagree with others. But there is perfect unity between the books of the Bible .. which speak of hundreds of subjects in many fields. There is no contradiction among them.

Who but God could produce such a book?

Hundreds of prophecies of future events were recorded in the Bible .. some of them centuries before fulfillment.. and not one detail of any of them has ever failed!

No other "religious book" foretells the future. The Old Testament, written over a 1,000 year period, contains several hundred references to the coming Messiah .. all of which were fulfilled exactly in Jesus Christ.

The chance that all these predictions could come true exactly as written is beyond most human's comprehension, giving to any honest enquirer undeniable proof that God inspired the writing of the prophecies in the Bible.

Throughout this entire rant, you failed to answer his question. Whats the "factual evidence"?

Dolphan7

04-18-2009, 01:02 PM

The bible is the inspired word of God. . remember that there are tribes and peoples that recount the accurate retelling of events to upcoming generations. . this is how experiences were shared years ago. . they were extremely accurate. . factor in that God himself was the inspiration and driving force behind the retelling and writing of the pages ..

Look. . the proof is in the pudding. . No one has ever successfully refuted the Bible. Many mock the Bible but avoid challenging it point by point. No one who has done in-depth research, honestly examining the evidence for the Bible's inspiration and truthfulness, has been able to disprove the Bible.

History records many who set out to disprove the Bible, who instead became believers. Our Bible is composed of 66 books, by about 40 different writers of various backgrounds, living during a period of about 1,600 years -- yet they present one message. Such a miracle can only be explained by there being one divine Author, who was in control of all these human writers.

The Bible writers came from many walks of life, including kings, peasants, philosophers, fishermen, herdsmen, poets, statesmen, scholars, soldiers, priests, prophets, a tax collector, a tentmaking rabbi, and a Gentile doctor.

The Bible was written in three different languages: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.

The writings contained in the Bible belong to a great variety of literary types including history, law, poetry, educational discourses, parables, biography, personal correspondence, and prophecy.

Books written by men have no unity of thought on even one subject. Some of them invariably disagree with others. But there is perfect unity between the books of the Bible .. which speak of hundreds of subjects in many fields. There is no contradiction among them.

Who but God could produce such a book?

Hundreds of prophecies of future events were recorded in the Bible .. some of them centuries before fulfillment.. and not one detail of any of them has ever failed!

No other "religious book" foretells the future. The Old Testament, written over a 1,000 year period, contains several hundred references to the coming Messiah .. all of which were fulfilled exactly in Jesus Christ.

The chance that all these predictions could come true exactly as written is beyond most human's comprehension, giving to any honest enquirer undeniable proof that God inspired the writing of the prophecies in the Bible.
Good post. The over 300 prophesies of Jesus alone should be enough factual evidence for most, but there are those skeptics.

There is no way one earthly man could ever purposely fulfill every one of the over 300 prophesies about Jesus Christ. It would be impossible, unless he were indeed the real deal. And he is!

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/messiah.htm

Factual evidence of God = The Bible

Factual evidence of God = The world and universe consisting of enormous complexity and design, from stable and consistent laws to highly complex life forms that can only come from a designer, not random chance. There is so much order and consistency in what we see everywhere we look. How it all came together can only be because of a creator or designer. Science can't explain it, although many have tried. Science is still trying to figure out the impossible, which is trying to explain away God and replace it with natural occurring phenomenon that no one has seen or discovered, yet the belief is strong.

The two strongest pieces of factual evidence for the existence of God are His Book, and His World.

It is right there for all to see, for those who choose to see. It is right under the nose so to speak.

tylerdolphin

04-18-2009, 01:27 PM

Good post. The over 300 prophesies of Jesus alone should be enough factual evidence for most, but there are those skeptics.

There is no way one earthly man could ever purposely fulfill every one of the over 300 prophesies about Jesus Christ. It would be impossible, unless he were indeed the real deal. And he is!

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/messiah.htm

Factual evidence of God = The Bible

Factual evidence of God = The world and universe consisting of enormous complexity and design, from stable and consistent laws to highly complex life forms that can only come from a designer, not random chance. There is so much order and consistency in what we see everywhere we look. How it all came together can only be because of a creator or designer. Science can't explain it, although many have tried. Science is still trying to figure out the impossible, which is trying to explain away God and replace it with natural occurring phenomenon that no one has seen or discovered, yet the belief is strong.

The two strongest pieces of factual evidence for the existence of God are His Book, and His World.

It is right there for all to see, for those who choose to see. It is right under the nose so to speak.
The prophecies are true if you twist them enough to fit events. If you take them as they are though, they dont really predict anything.
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/proph/long.html

syborg

04-18-2009, 01:36 PM

^^^^

I ran out of time earlier but the fulfilled prophesies were my next post. . :hi5:

some of the fulfilled prophesies were as follows:

Isaiah 7:14 says, "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son and shall call his name Immanuel." Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary.

Micah 5:2: "But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of there shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old; from everlasting." Jesus was born in Bethlehem.

Also prophesied were events like John the Baptist preparing the way, Jesus teaching in Capernaum and Jesus riding into Jerusalem on a colt.

Psalm 41:9 even foretells Judas' betrayal, "Yea, mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, which did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me." And Zechariah 11:12 perfectly predicts the payment Judas would receive, "And I said unto them, if ye think good, give me my price thirty pieces of silver."

Jesus' death on the cross was prophesied to the smallest detail.
Isaiah 53 spoke of His sacrificial death paying the price for the sins of all.
Psalm 109:25 tells that He would be mocked by those who watched.
Psalm 34:20 records the miracle that would happen when none of His bones were broken.
Psalm 22:18 says that people would gamble for possession of His clothing.
Psalm 31:5 contains the words that Jesus said when He committed His spirit into His Father's hands.
Isaiah 53:12 says that He would plead for the forgiveness of those who persecuted Him.
Amos 8:9 records the darkness that would follow the death of the Messiah. To find evidence that Jesus fulfilled all of these prophecies, read the gospel accounts of His life and death.

There are over 300 fulfilled prophesies by Jesus. . and not just fulfilled. . but perfectly fulfilled. . many of the prophesies were out of his control. . his birth and place of birth. . the manner of his death. . to name but 2.
Even the best con artist could not have pulled this off with the most intricate planning and would need thousands of people in the 1600 years it took to write. . many of whom were alive BEFORE him .. so I think this should be quite compelling. .

eric1589

04-18-2009, 01:46 PM

The bible is the inspired word of God. . remember that there are tribes and peoples that recount the accurate retelling of events to upcoming generations. . this is how experiences were shared years ago. . they were extremely accurate. . factor in that God himself was the inspiration and driving force behind the retelling and writing of the pages ..

Look. . the proof is in the pudding. . No one has ever successfully refuted the Bible. Many mock the Bible but avoid challenging it point by point. No one who has done in-depth research, honestly examining the evidence for the Bible's inspiration and truthfulness, has been able to disprove the Bible.

History records many who set out to disprove the Bible, who instead became believers. Our Bible is composed of 66 books, by about 40 different writers of various backgrounds, living during a period of about 1,600 years -- yet they present one message. Such a miracle can only be explained by there being one divine Author, who was in control of all these human writers.

I understand that this is what you want to believe... but that doesn't make it true. never forget that.
The Bible writers came from many walks of life, including kings, peasants, philosophers, fishermen, herdsmen, poets, statesmen, scholars, soldiers, priests, prophets, a tax collector, a tentmaking rabbi, and a Gentile doctor.

The Bible was written in three different languages: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.

The writings contained in the Bible belong to a great variety of literary types including history, law, poetry, educational discourses, parables, biography, personal correspondence, and prophecy.

Books written by men have no unity of thought on even one subject. Some of them invariably disagree with others. But there is perfect unity between the books of the Bible .. which speak of hundreds of subjects in many fields. There is no contradiction among them.

Who but God could produce such a book?

creative people with an agenda to serve. oh I forgot... you guys don't acknowledge that possibility when its pointed toward your own belief. you just attribute it all to the work of god. because god is a super natural ideology he can not be proven or disprove.

just as you could not disprove the existence of an invisible unicorn grazing in your backyard. no one can disprove the existence of god. isn't that convenient for you guys?

Hundreds of prophecies of future events were recorded in the Bible .. some of them centuries before fulfillment.. and not one detail of any of them has ever failed!

what prophecies and events? I bet none of those prophecies undoubtedly describe an event. I'm sure they are vague predictions that are molded to fit events, after the fact. that's easy. people do that **** all the time. it doesn't mean anything.
No other "religious book" foretells the future. The Old Testament, written over a 1,000 year period, contains several hundred references to the coming Messiah .. all of which were fulfilled exactly in Jesus Christ.

I suppose it is completely impossible that the writing of the 2nd part was influenced by reading the first part... I guess it is impossible to believe if you are close minded and don't want to be skeptical or questioning.

The chance that all these predictions could come true exactly as written is beyond most human's comprehension, giving to any honest enquirer undeniable proof that God inspired the writing of the prophecies in the Bible.

come one now. stop exaggerating. we all know it is all DENIABLE. if it were undeniable this discussion wouldn't be happening. use your head man. think about things BEFORE you say something.

go ahead and share some of these "predictions" with us. then show us the actual event they are predicting. if this is all so undeniable, then the work ought to already be done for you. all you have to do is find it and share it with us.

ill also take some of those pieces of "factual evidence" you were ranting about earlier. its funny, you believers always mention these things yet always fail to share them. STOP pointing to something you don't have.

you entire post could have been summarized by saying "I believe its real, and that makes it real"

which is an insufficient argument. you know this, so you drew it out nice and long. but making it longer doesn't make it more accurate. this argument is not about what you believe. its about what you can prove. you are the one proclaiming these things and bragging about evidence and facts that you have yet to show even 1 of.

syborg

04-18-2009, 01:57 PM

Eric1589. . .

I have answered your last post already. . look up ^^^^ :lol2::up:

Marino613

04-18-2009, 02:47 PM

Throughout this entire rant, you failed to answer his question. Whats the "factual evidence"?

To be fair, Syborg offered a few types of evidence. I don't actually think his evidence is good, but he did attempt to answer the question. Do be clear, I am not out to disprove the Fundamentalist Christian understanding of the bible here but to show that there are other plausible approaches as well.

1) He presented the evidence based on the authority of all the scholars who have failed "to refute the bible" after honest in depth study. The fact that there are several biblical scholars, experts in the various books, the language they used, the history and archaeology surrounding their study, in numerous bible departments around the world who don't accept the book as the word of God, not to mention numerous apostates from Christianity who were spoonfed the bible from birth who reject it, and you have (after a run on sentence) a whole host of people who honestly looked at the bible and rejected it in whole or in part as the word of God.

2) He presented evidence based on the "perfect unity" in the Bible. That ignores the contradictions in the bible. Of course on response is that these contradictions can be reconciled. While that may be (although I disagree with several of the so called reconciliations), for the "perfect" unity of the book to be proof of its divinity you have to have absolutely clear and compelling unity and not unity after some interpretation.

Moreover, Syborg makes the assumption that no other cultural continuum of texts is as unified. That a) assumes that this is true (I am not saying it isn't true, but you have to actually prove it) and b) assumes that the context of a highly illiterate culture where there is a limited group of people controlling, editing, copying and recopying, redacting and studying, wouldn't provide a milieu in which eventually texts would start saying similar messages.

3) Finally the so called 300+ references to Jesus (that are "perfectly fullfilled" by him) in the OT. There are many websites out there that do a fine job refuting them. I think many of them have their own agendas as well (anti-religion or Jewish anti-missionary), but I don't feel the need to reiterate what a simple google search can do. Still, I will summarize the approaches. a) Many of these texts are clearly not about Jesus b) many of these texts by definition apply to anyone who is a messianic hopeful including but certainly not limited to Jesus c) many of these texts aren't necessarily about Jesus, a messiah or a son of God even if they could be interpreted that way d) many of these texts only partly describe Jesus but there are parts that don't fit either e) the 300+ list fails to include authentic OT messianic prophecies that were never fulfilled by Jesus g) many of them are just non-sequiter, out of cotext verses and phrases that are more free association than anything substantial h) Any NT texts that use the OT to substantiate Jesus as the Messiah or Son of God themselves are guilty of much of the above misuse of text, although I prefer to call this interpretation.

To be clear, I am not deriding the legitimacy of a Christian reader "finding" Jesus in the OT. If that is an inspired reading, I am happy for you truly. What I take issue is with the number of Christians who present this as indisputable evidence when it seems full of holes to me.

tylerdolphin

04-18-2009, 03:46 PM

It is amazing how many clear, spelled out prophecies in the Bible were just flat out wrong.

eric1589

04-18-2009, 05:12 PM

Good post. The over 300 prophesies of Jesus alone should be enough factual evidence for most, but there are those skeptics.

seriously man. with all the astonishingly in-depth discoveries that lead to the proposition of the theory of evolution being denied by you and so many others.... how can you make such a blatantly hypocritical statement?

There is no way one earthly man could ever purposely fulfill every one of the over 300 prophesies about Jesus Christ. It would be impossible, unless he were indeed the real deal. And he is!

stop proclaiming your blind faith as fact. you cant prove any of what you just said. there is not one shred of evidence to support any of it, that is not MAN MADE.
for that you even be a factor of this discussion you have to ASSUME that he actually existed and fulfilled any prophecies at all.

no it does not. just because you take the hole story of the bible on faith, does not make it fact. maybe it is good enough to convince you but it undoubtedly nothing of value in this discussion. your belief of nothing but stories told to you by other people is not acceptable evidence.

in a court of law, it is nothing more then "hear say" and is inadmissible.

Factual evidence of God = The world and universe consisting of enormous complexity and design, from stable and consistent laws to highly complex life forms that can only come from a designer, not random chance. There is so much order and consistency in what we see everywhere we look. How it all came together can only be because of a creator or designer. Science can't explain it, although many have tried. Science is still trying to figure out the impossible, which is trying to explain away God and replace it with natural occurring phenomenon that no one has seen or discovered, yet the belief is strong.

you can not use the subject of the investigation as evidence for your argument. you can not simply say, ''the earth is here, god must have created it.'' that doesn't work. you should know better then to make such see-through arguments. anyone with a brain can see through this ruse

The two strongest pieces of factual evidence for the existence of God are His Book, and His World.

It is right there for all to see, for those who choose to see. It is right under the nose so to speak.

OMFG dude,

can you really be any more clueless?:crazy: you just don't get it do you?

the bible, its claims, and its authenticity are all under examination here. you can NOT use the subject of the investigation as the evidence.

a prosecutor cant convict a suspect simply because that suspect is actually alive and breathing. he cant be convicted simply because he is a suspect. he has to be proven to be the perpetrator.
facts and evidence are used to do that. the prosecutor cant just say, "your honor the police report says that john doe was a suspect. he was apprehended and charged with the crime. as you can see clearly, he is here in the court room so he must be guilty.":lol2:

its un- ****ing - believable that you would denounce and deny the mountains of research data that support evolution, along with the brilliant people of all walks of life who dedicate their lives to studying it because you claim the evidence is not enough... yet this is your argument for the opposition.

this post makes it almost impossible me for to respect anything you say, or any convictions you have... especially on this matter.

you have just demonstrated the entire problem with religion. outlandish claims with absolutely nothing to back them up except for your blind faith in the words of people who came before you. people who are just as likely to have been incorrect as you are. remember now. the further back you go down that road, the less reliable anything found on it is.

hence forth your entire argument is nothing more then your faith vs. scientific discovery. your faith is not evidence and is inadmissible in the discussion. I would have thought that was common sense but hey, some people just don't think things out clearly before they open their mouth, or let their fingers loose on a keyboard.
now that we have gotten to the bottom of that road... I hope nobody travels down it again. its clearly a dead end. you have finally reached to the bottom of your bag of tricks... so I guess this is over then. I see no loose ends in the branch of the discussion, regarding "facts" or "evidence."

I ran out of time earlier but the fulfilled prophesies were my next post. . :hi5:

some of the fulfilled prophesies were as follows:

Isaiah 7:14 says, "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son and shall call his name Immanuel." Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary.

Micah 5:2: "But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of there shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old; from everlasting." Jesus was born in Bethlehem.

Also prophesied were events like John the Baptist preparing the way, Jesus teaching in Capernaum and Jesus riding into Jerusalem on a colt.

Psalm 41:9 even foretells Judas' betrayal, "Yea, mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, which did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me." And Zechariah 11:12 perfectly predicts the payment Judas would receive, "And I said unto them, if ye think good, give me my price thirty pieces of silver."

Jesus' death on the cross was prophesied to the smallest detail.
Isaiah 53 spoke of His sacrificial death paying the price for the sins of all.
Psalm 109:25 tells that He would be mocked by those who watched.
Psalm 34:20 records the miracle that would happen when none of His bones were broken.
Psalm 22:18 says that people would gamble for possession of His clothing.
Psalm 31:5 contains the words that Jesus said when He committed His spirit into His Father's hands.
Isaiah 53:12 says that He would plead for the forgiveness of those who persecuted Him.
Amos 8:9 records the darkness that would follow the death of the Messiah. To find evidence that Jesus fulfilled all of these prophecies, read the gospel accounts of His life and death.

There are over 300 fulfilled prophesies by Jesus. . and not just fulfilled. . but perfectly fulfilled. . many of the prophesies were out of his control. . his birth and place of birth. . the manner of his death. . to name but 2.
Even the best con artist could not have pulled this off with the most intricate planning and would need thousands of people in the 1600 years it took to write. . many of whom were alive BEFORE him .. so I think this should be quite compelling. .

just like I told d7. your faith in something being true does not make it true. if you cant at least show something credible to back it up it is not evidence because none of it can be verified.

just because you believe it, DOES NOT MAKE IT TRUE.

get that into your head. repeat it aloud while you smack your head against the wall...unless you have a better method of acknowledging and remembering COMMON SENSE!

i seriously cant believe the things you people deny, yet the tings you try to proclaim as fact at the same time.

what some one else tells you does not outweigh what everyone can see with their own eyes if they just open them.

facts > faith

i think im gonna print bumper stickers and t-hirts with that slogan. and donate some of the proceeds to fund scientific research for the betterment of mankind and his understanding of the universe.

eric1589

04-18-2009, 05:26 PM

Eric1589. . .

I have answered your last post already. . look up ^^^^ :lol2::up:

no you have not.
whats really funny is that you think that you have.

syborg

04-18-2009, 06:31 PM

no you have not.
whats really funny is that you think that you have.

I have actually you just choose to take a very negative standpoint. .

The Bible says you need FAITH in order to experience God at his full. . this kind of tells you that absolubte proof if a fruitless thing to ask for or FAITH is no longer needed. .

I have seen things in my walk with God that cannot be explained by science. .

deaf hearing and blind seeing after prayer. .someone with back pain discovering that one leg was about 2 inches shorter than the other but after prayer right in front of everyone it grew and that person no longer has back pain.
A friend had cancer. . healed through prayer. .
Another member of my church who suffered IBS for 20 years healed after God told the pastor to call her out for prayer. .sorted. .

you can refute all you like but just like the blind man who was healed on the sabbath personal testimony outweighs ANY AND ALL objections. .

You say you want proof but are unwilling to accept Gods word or creation as said proof but rather take the science of the smaller created being over the creator of all. .

eric1589

04-18-2009, 07:19 PM

I have actually you just choose to take a very negative standpoint. .

The Bible says you need FAITH in order to experience God at his full. . this kind of tells you that absolubte proof if a fruitless thing to ask for or FAITH is no longer needed. .

I have seen things in my walk with God that cannot be explained by science. .

deaf hearing and blind seeing after prayer. .someone with back pain discovering that one leg was about 2 inches shorter than the other but after prayer right in front of everyone it grew and that person no longer has back pain.
A friend had cancer. . healed through prayer. .
Another member of my church who suffered IBS for 20 years healed after God told the pastor to call her out for prayer. .sorted. .

you can refute all you like but just like the blind man who was healed on the sabbath personal testimony outweighs ANY AND ALL objections. .

You say you want proof but are unwilling to accept Gods word or creation as said proof but rather take the science of the smaller created being over the creator of all. .

LMAO. you should re-read my posts. obviously you have a comprehension problem. faith is not something you can use to verify or test something under dispute. i am not taking any negative standpoint. you are the one proclaiming something you can not prove. prove it or stop trying to call it facts or evidence. you cant just throw words around without knowing what they mean.

you still have yet to prove anything you claimed. now you are expanding on this by making more unreasonable claims. stop digging hole deeper. you are stripping yourself of your own credibility.

as for prayer healing people... lol

here is how i feel about that:
http://theframeproblem.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/prayer-purpose.png?w=450&h=600

Marino613

04-18-2009, 08:02 PM

Unfortunately, even assuming that miraculous healing happened as you describe it SYborg [Edit: Ia ctually wrote Eric in my first version...], I the non-Christian am stuck with the fact that there are numerous stories of this kind from several different faiths, both ancient and modern. I have personally met people who claim to have seen the same types of miracles (amongst other non-healing miracles) whom I know personally. These include Buddhists and Jews in particular, but I have also met a Hindu as well who had these experiences. I have also met new age healers and others who claim similar experiences. [Note that Buddhists do not in general believe in a creator God and moreover think that miracles are not a foundation for accepting the Buddha's teachings and Jews do not accept Jesus.]

I am not going to challenge your experiences, but if I accept them, I also need to accept the testimony of many of these others, especially the ones whom I know better than you and who I have less reason to doubt. Therefore, I either think it is all false, or I accept that the miraculous transcends any one so called "Word of God".

Dolphan7

04-19-2009, 12:22 AM

The prophecies are true if you twist them enough to fit events. If you take them as they are though, they dont really predict anything.
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/proph/long.htmlAnd why would you take a skeptics view of the bible over biblical scholars who have confirmed the text as referring to Jesus? Look you can find lots of people in this world who will dispute the bible. About 99% have no clue about what they are talking about, the link is just one example. All these have been explained many times if one chooses to do the research. Sadly most don't and walk away from the bible and God thinking it isn't true. That doesn't make it untrue however. To be fair... believing in the bible doesn't make it true either. The actual bible proves itself.

1. It was written over a span of 1600 years.
2. By over 40 authors; kings, pheasants, philosophers, fishermen, poets, shepherds, generals, doctors and many others.
3. In several different places; Wilderness, dungeon, prison, in battle, etc..
4. Different moods; happy, sad, angry, grieving, fearful etc...
5. Three different continents; Asia, Africa, Europe.
6. Three different languages; Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek.

With all these differences the bible speaks to hundreds of controversial issues, but with harmony and continuity on each. As much as it has been attacked of the centuries, it has never been disproved in any area. In fact many that have taken the task of doing just that have either given up or become believers themselves. Check out Josh McDowall, Frank Morrison and CS Lewis.

The reliability and authenticity of the bible is second to none of the works of antiquity. How can the bible come into existence and be maintained throughout all this time "without" the assistance and guidance of a divine creator? Men who couldn't have known each other as they were thousands of years apart on time could not have compiled the bible alone. It cannot be the work of men alone.

Fulfilled prophecy in the bible is simply amazing hitting on every prediction made. Predictions made thousands of years before they were actually fulfilled. As an example Jesus was to be scourged according to the OT. But this was written 700 years before the Romans invented scourging. Just the fact alone that Jesus fulfilled over 300 prophecies about himself alone is amazing. Could he have just read the OT and attempted to fulfill them on his own? Read this:

A descendent of Abraham, Isaac, (not Ishmael), Jacob, (not Esau), Judah, (not any of his 11 brothers), Jesse, and David. Born of a virgin (this narrows it way down yes?) Born in Bethlehem. Preceded by a messenger. His Ministry of miracles. Betrayed by a friend. Sold for 30 pieces of silver. Money had to be thrown in to the house of the Lord. Money given for a potters field to bury poor people. Accuse by false witness. Struck and spit on. Scourged. Gall and vinegar to drink. Hands and feet pierced. Crucified with criminals. Lots cast for his clothing. People wagged their head and repeated exactly the right words. Mocked by people. Darkness at noon. Friends standing away from him at a distance. Bones not broken. He was pierced. Buried in a rich man's tomb.

And this all had to be controlled by one man who knew that he would have to suffer through all that just to fulfill prophecy? I don't think so.

So what are the odds of one man fulfilling these by accident? Take the state of Texas and fill it up 2 feet deep with silver dollars. Walk out into the silver dollars and pick one up and that would be the one = 1 to the 17th power, or once chance in 100,000,000,000,000,000. And that is only for just 8 fulfilled prophecies. Jesus fulfilled over 300.

If you look at the historic record of Jesus the person. He did exist. And was resurrected. All theories to the contrary have been soundly debunked; The swoon theory, the theft theory, the wrong tomb theory.
We can intellectually and logically show that there is a preponderance of evidence that point to a creator. There is no doubt in my mind that the bible is in fact the accurate word of God.
But what we can't prove, we can comfortably know that God exists anyway and that is called faith.
HEB 11:1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

Take all the written works of the world... past and present... and put them on one side. Then take the bible and put it on the other. It stands alone. No other literary work compares to it's vast amount of knowledge and foresight. No other work outlines God's attributes and character, man's purpose in this world, his fall, and redemption and path to salvation through Jesus Christ. No other book has such power to move and change people.

God sent His son to die for our sins. He wrote His words for us so that we can know and understand His son and what that means to every individual on earth. God will not be sending any more sons. God will not be writing anymore books. This is it. People must choose. Beware....Satan is running loose in the world trying to turn people away from God. And he is very good at what he does. Very, very good. Beware. Do not be deceived. Each man must decide for himself. Many will not choose God. Only a few will get it.

Choose wisely. Do the research. Leave no stone unturned in seeking God's truth.

Eternity is a very long time to be wrong.

Dolphan7

04-19-2009, 12:26 AM

It is amazing how many clear, spelled out prophecies in the Bible were just flat out wrong.You're a bible scholar now?:lol:

Dolphan7

04-19-2009, 12:56 AM

1) He presented the evidence based on the authority of all the scholars who have failed "to refute the bible" after honest in depth study. The fact that there are several biblical scholars, experts in the various books, the language they used, the history and archaeology surrounding their study, in numerous bible departments around the world who don't accept the book as the word of God, not to mention numerous apostates from Christianity who were spoonfed the bible from birth who reject it, and you have (after a run on sentence) a whole host of people who honestly looked at the bible and rejected it in whole or in part as the word of God.Lot's of people reject the bible. That is a no brainer. The point he was making, and it is a valid point, is that the bible is not disputed. No one has debunked the bible so to speak. Of the many that have tried, they ended up believers, or gave up trying. That is the amazing testimony of scripture!

2) He presented evidence based on the "perfect unity" in the Bible. That ignores the contradictions in the bible. Of course on response is that these contradictions can be reconciled. While that may be (although I disagree with several of the so called reconciliations), for the "perfect" unity of the book to be proof of its divinity you have to have absolutely clear and compelling unity and not unity after some interpretation.Who says? You? It is the word of God, written by inspired men, who many times wrote but didn't understand what they were writing as in the prophesies. It isn't always going to be crystal clear. Many great discoveries of Science aren't clear and need further research and reading to fully understand them. Having said that, for the one who has a mind for the truth, it isn't hard to read and understand the bible. But when one begins with the idea that it isn't the truth, one starts with one hand tied behind their back. Are you married? Do you understand your wife? Do you understand her more now than when you first met her? Didn't you have a desire to know more about her, and did? Didn't you learn more and more about her as time went on. It wasn't clear in the beginning was it?God is the same way. If you don't have the desire to learn and understand God, God will be hidden from you.

Moreover, Syborg makes the assumption that no other cultural continuum of texts is as unified. That a) assumes that this is true (I am not saying it isn't true, but you have to actually prove it) and b) assumes that the context of a highly illiterate culture where there is a limited group of people controlling, editing, copying and recopying, redacting and studying, wouldn't provide a milieu in which eventually texts would start saying similar messages.Name one ancient text that speaks to so many diverse issues in harmony over a thousand years in the making, that speak of the nature and character of God and of man's purpose and path to salvation, and with such wisdom and knowledge.

3) Finally the so called 300+ references to Jesus (that are "perfectly fulfilled" by him) in the OT. There are many websites out there that do a fine job refuting them. I think many of them have their own agendas as well (anti-religion or Jewish anti-missionary), but I don't feel the need to reiterate what a simple google search can do. Still, I will summarize the approaches. a) Many of these texts are clearly not about Jesus b) many of these texts by definition apply to anyone who is a messianic hopeful including but certainly not limited to Jesus c) many of these texts aren't necessarily about Jesus, a messiah or a son of God even if they could be interpreted that way d) many of these texts only partly describe Jesus but there are parts that don't fit either e) the 300+ list fails to include authentic OT messianic prophecies that were never fulfilled by Jesus g) many of them are just non-sequiter, out of cotext verses and phrases that are more free association than anything substantial h) Any NT texts that use the OT to substantiate Jesus as the Messiah or Son of God themselves are guilty of much of the above misuse of text, although I prefer to call this interpretation.Yes the internet is full of highly skilled biblical scholars these days. And every one of the skeptics so called contradictions have been debunked, also a google search away for the avid student of God's truth. The fact remains, it isn't the contradictions that are holding people back from believing. It is themselves who seek to refute the very document that if true will make them accountable for their sins.That is the root of the problem. Contradictions can be explained, but people will find some other reason to reject God. It is a useless task to continue with people of this caliber.

To be clear, I am not deriding the legitimacy of a Christian reader "finding" Jesus in the OT. If that is an inspired reading, I am happy for you truly. What I take issue is with the number of Christians who present this as indisputable evidence when it seems full of holes to me.Is it full of holes? Or are you just not understanding? Or are you simply not at that point where you want to find the truth of God in the bible?

Jesus lived and died, and lived again. We have eyewitness testimony of this fact. We have eyewitness testimony of his miracles. This isn't a question. The question is what are you going to do with Jesus? That is the question.

You have two choices.

Accept Him and his truth....

Reject him.

Eternity is a very very long time to be wrong.

Marino613

04-19-2009, 02:29 AM

Lot's of people reject the bible. That is a no brainer. The point he was making, and it is a valid point, is that the bible is not disputed. No one has debunked the bible so to speak. Of the many that have tried, they ended up believers, or gave up trying. That is the amazing testimony of scripture!

It simply isn't true. Several archaeology and history departments go by the assumption that the Egyptian Chronology is validated by the archaeological record and that it conflicts with the biblical account. They also accept that Jericho would have been long abandoned by the time the Israelites got there. Through linguistic, textual, and comparative literary analysis, they deconstruct the texts into earlier strands and place them in a historical context. The very foundation of their studies is based in previous generations conclusions that the biblical chronology was wrong based on what they saw as archaeological evidence.

You need not agree with their conclusions, but to claim they simply "gave up" is false.

Amazingly I know Muslims who make similar claims about the Quran not being debunked.

In sum: Many bright educated serious people have studied and concluded the Bible was not the word of God.

Who says? You? It is the word of God, written by inspired men, who many times wrote but didn't understand what they were writing as in the prophesies. It isn't always going to be crystal clear. Many great discoveries of Science aren't clear and need further research and reading to fully understand them. Having said that, for the one who has a mind for the truth, it isn't hard to read and understand the bible. But when one begins with the idea that it isn't the truth, one starts with one hand tied behind their back. Are you married? Do you understand your wife? Do you understand her more now than when you first met her? Didn't you have a desire to know more about her, and did? Didn't you learn more and more about her as time went on. It wasn't clear in the beginning was it?God is the same way. If you don't have the desire to learn and understand God, God will be hidden from you.
I was responding to the point that it is a text that has perfect unity and as such should be proof of the divinity of the Bible. If I need to start reconciling and interpreting everything, then the proof becomes murkier and murkier. It then becomes more of a matter of opinion and interpretation than provable fact, at least in many cases.

Moreover, you don't know me. You are wrong if you think I started believing it was false or lacked desire. I studied with tremendous faith and still noticed the contradictions both stark and subtle in the Hebrew Bible. Also, This is also a rather double edged argument. The belief that it is the work of God is a handicap as well to any objective observer who hasn't decided yet. I have noticed you often employ the strategy of questioning the motivations of the person you disagree with. You are wrong here.

The analogy to a relationship is beautiful. The difference is that I was able to take my wife out, dance with her, talk to her, and be intimate with her pretty much from the get go. If one has not had that type of empirical experience of God through the Bible and the Bible alone then there is no foundation to treat it as proven as the exclusive word of God.

In sum: still not convinced that the texts have such clear unity as to prove the divine source of the Bible

Name one ancient text that speaks to so many diverse issues in harmony over a thousand years in the making, that speak of the nature and character of God and of man's purpose and path to salvation, and with such wisdom and knowledge.First of all, the burden of proof is not on me. If you believe the Bible is the only text that speaks so broadly yet so uniformly, you have to present a legitimate sourced survey of world religious literature based on sound methodologies regarding what constitutes textual unity and show that this was unique.

Second, the Bible is not one text, so to ask for one text is an unfair comparison. You need to ask for a collection of texts in the same cultural and religious context. I believe the Upanishads would count actually on all of these fronts.

Yes the internet is full of highly skilled biblical scholars these days. And every one of the skeptics so called contradictions have been debunked, also a google search away for the avid student of God's truth. The fact remains, it isn't the contradictions that are holding people back from believing. It is themselves who seek to refute the very document that if true will make them accountable for their sins.That is the root of the problem.
As I was speaking about the 300 prophesies about Jesus here I would ask why do limit this discourse to the internet? the debate over the the presaging of Jesus in the OT goes back about 2000 years with several texts published by learned scholars. The internet is just an easy place to find people continuing the debate. Nevertheless, having studied several of these prophesies, I, like many others who have taken it seriously, don't think it is good evidence of the truth of the Bible.

Contradictions can be explained, but people will find some other reason to reject God. It is a useless task to continue with people of this caliber.You assume that an explanation of a contradiction is the same thing as debunking the contradiction. Many of these explanations succeed at coming up with a plausible reconciled reading but fail to disprove a plausible non-reconciled reading. People don't need to look for another reason, the first one is still good enough.

Is it full of holes? Or are you just not understanding? Or are you simply not at that point where you want to find the truth of God in the bible?
Yes.
Probably a little, but I understand decently enough even in the original Hebrew and Aramaic. Besides all I have is my understanding and limited time.
I want to find the Truth of God wherever that may be possible. That Truth though is not in evidence as of yet.

How about you? Are you simply not at a point where you can understand that what you think is so clear and obvious might legitimately not be clear and obvious to different rational people? Is there something holding you back from recognizing the fact that to non-Christians, you sound just like a true believer of any religion?

Jesus lived and died, and lived again. We have eyewitness testimony of this fact. We have eyewitness testimony of his miracles. This isn't a question. The question is what are you going to do with Jesus? That is the question.

You have two choices.

Accept Him and his truth....

Reject him.Sorry, but there are more choices than that.

Recognize the stories as apocryphal and not really true.
Accept him as one more miracles man amongst several from different faiths who have eyewitness accounts and marvel at the spiritual potential of humanity.
Reject him as a false prophet ala deuteronomy 18.
Ignore him because there isn't enough reason to bother looking.

Eternity is a very very long time to be wrong.:rimshot:

tylerdolphin

04-19-2009, 02:33 AM

I dont need to be a Bible scholar dude...seriously. There are many failed prophecies in the Bible. Anywhere from Egypt being a baren land, to Tyre being destroyed, to Jerusalem falling during a certain kings reign, to Davids line never leaving the throne, to God telling Zedekiah he would die in peace with his family only to have him die a violent death in another land, to Babylon never being inhabited again, to Egypt being destroyed by Nebuchadrezzar, to the Nile drying up. All this and many more. You cant pretend that there are no failed prophecies. That simply isnt the case.

aesop

04-19-2009, 02:04 PM

Dolphan7 - I just had to respond to your 'theory' that 9/10 people coming out of universities are atheist or agnostic. Are you kidding me? A total of 1.6% of the population reported themselves as being atheist or agnostic in 2008 per the ARIS survey. (About 15% reported No religion)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States - Scroll down to the ARIS Survey

DuderinoN703

04-19-2009, 07:49 PM

at least im 50/50 right, which is more than i can say for some. and your response is "he has no idea what is out there". the man is 50 years old, and your telling me he has no idea. stop drinking the kool-aid my friend. that low ratings movie was designed to disrespect all religons, looks like you fell for it.

One's age is irrelevant when talking about knowing what is out there in this case b/c no one truly knows what is in fact out there. I saw the movie to be entertained and it worked. That's it. I wasn't looking for anything more.

You want to debate the meaning of the movie or of life, no prob.

Dolphan7

04-20-2009, 03:47 PM

I dont need to be a Bible scholar dude...seriously. There are many failed prophecies in the Bible. Anywhere from Egypt being a baren land, to Tyre being destroyed, to Jerusalem falling during a certain kings reign, to Davids line never leaving the throne, to God telling Zedekiah he would die in peace with his family only to have him die a violent death in another land, to Babylon never being inhabited again, to Egypt being destroyed by Nebuchadrezzar, to the Nile drying up. All this and many more. You cant pretend that there are no failed prophecies. That simply isnt the case.
Pick one. Let's discuss.:up:

Dolphan7

04-20-2009, 05:20 PM

It simply isn't true. Several archaeology and history departments go by the assumption that the Egyptian Chronology is validated by the archaeological record and that it conflicts with the biblical account. They also accept that Jericho would have been long abandoned by the time the Israelites got there. Through linguistic, textual, and comparative literary analysis, they deconstruct the texts into earlier strands and place them in a historical context. The very foundation of their studies is based in previous generations conclusions that the biblical chronology was wrong based on what they saw as archaeological evidence.Your entire argument falls on this one word.

You need not agree with their conclusions, but to claim they simply "gave up" is false. Did they dispute it? Or simply provide their own understanding? Two different issues. Do they continue in their attempts? Or are they finished? Like I said before, people can reject the bible for as many reasons as there are stars in the universe, but the bible still stands alone as the most unique document in human history. Many have tried to debunk, the best they can do is come up with plausibility or another source. That isn't enough to debunk the bible.

Amazingly I know Muslims who make similar claims about the Quran not being debunked. But there cannot be two truths. Either they are all false, or only one is true. Nothing in between. The bible still stands alone in that category. All others fall far short under scrutiny.

In sum: Many bright educated serious people have studied and concluded the Bible was not the word of God.And just as many if not more have concluded that it is. There will always be skeptics. The bible has not been proven to be false, only personal non-belief in it based on what I believe to be shoddy research as I have found in almost all cases.

I was responding to the point that it is a text that has perfect unity and as such should be proof of the divinity of the Bible. If I need to start reconciling and interpreting everything, then the proof becomes murkier and murkier. It then becomes more of a matter of opinion and interpretation than provable fact, at least in many cases. And my point was that one needs to study it more to become more familiar with it and understand it's truths, just like anything in life. You don't just wake up one day and decide you are a major league baseball player. It takes focus and practice and development of skills and time etc...

Moreover, you don't know me. You are wrong if you think I started believing it was false or lacked desire. I studied with tremendous faith and still noticed the contradictions both stark and subtle in the Hebrew Bible. Also, This is also a rather double edged argument. The belief that it is the work of God is a handicap as well to any objective observer who hasn't decided yet. I have noticed you often employ the strategy of questioning the motivations of the person you disagree with. You are wrong here. I speak in generalities for the most part, not about a single person. I am sure you have done lots of study of many different things. The problem is in this day and age there is this guy who seeks to cast a cloud of doubt around God, Jesus and the Bible. He attempts to make it very hard for people to understand the truth of God. He constantly clutters our minds with false teachings and such so that the average person really has no idea what the truth is, and become agnostic, not knowing one way or the other. But that doesn't mean we can't find the truth if we look hard enough. If you don't know what to believe, keep looking and I pray that you find God's truth one day.

The analogy to a relationship is beautiful. The difference is that I was able to take my wife out, dance with her, talk to her, and be intimate with her pretty much from the get go. If one has not had that type of empirical experience of God through the Bible and the Bible alone then there is no foundation to treat it as proven as the exclusive word of God.Everyone has the same opportunity to do that exact same thing with God. Doesn't mean the relationship will work out, just like every person you date will not be your wife. Many have rejected God, for many stupid reasons. The point is God is open to all, but they have to be reaching and searching for Him. God isn't going to simply appear and say ok here I am you skeptic - believe in me now? It doesn't work that way. Any great relationship takes work. It makes the relationship more valuable when you have to work on it and for it. Just like material objects. One is much more inclined to treat a new motorcycle better if it is purchased with youe own hard earned money, verses it being a gift from a grand-father to a selfish and unappreciative grand-son.

In sum: still not convinced that the texts have such clear unity as to prove the divine source of the BibleThe good thing is your not convinced it isn't. I suggest you keep studying. the answers are there.

First of all, the burden of proof is not on me. If you believe the Bible is the only text that speaks so broadly yet so uniformly, you have to present a legitimate sourced survey of world religious literature based on sound methodologies regarding what constitutes textual unity and show that this was unique.Would that change your mind? Or simply envoke an endless field of questions? It has been done already. Many books have been written on the subject. Many comparative studies have been completed. The bible is a unique work of antiquity like no other document in history. It has changed the world in which we live in. Changed nations. Changed governments. Changed people. And most importantly changed lives. No other document speaks with such power and authority as the bible.

Second, the Bible is not one text, so to ask for one text is an unfair comparison. You need to ask for a collection of texts in the same cultural and religious context. I believe the Upanishads would count actually on all of these fronts.The bible is one text in that it is God speaking to us through His writen word. It it divided into books and categories based on historical or prohetic or poetic or instruction etc...Hinduism? Really? You feel that is just as valid as the bible, speaking to hundreds of issues in harmony?. Hinduism and bhudism and all those eastern religions have several different attributes of God or what God is. The bible is clear on just one God and His attributes, His character and his nature. Huge difference. Whenever I look at comparing religions of the world, one thing stands out. All religions are started by men. And those men died and were burried. Jesus died. He was burried. Show me the bones. That is the difference in all the religions combined as compared to Christianity. Jesus is the real deal!

As I was speaking about the 300 prophesies about Jesus here I would ask why do limit this discourse to the internet? the debate over the the presaging of Jesus in the OT goes back about 2000 years with several texts published by learned scholars. The internet is just an easy place to find people continuing the debate. Nevertheless, having studied several of these prophesies, I, like many others who have taken it seriously, don't think it is good evidence of the truth of the Bible.And my answer is the same. For any amount of books and research you can find anywhere to contradict the bible, there are more books and research to validate it. IT isn't about biblical contradictions. It is about each individual and their willingness to believe in an almighty God who does exist and who will hold them accountable for their actions. Knock down one stumbling block of a skeptic, and two more pop up. It is an endless and vicious cycle. It isn't about proof. It is about poeple who simply do not want accept a God who will send them to hell if they don't believe. That's what it always boils down to. And that guy is out there doing his best to make sure people don't get it.

You assume that an explanation of a contradiction is the same thing as debunking the contradiction. Many of these explanations succeed at coming up with a plausible reconciled reading but fail to disprove a plausible non-reconciled reading. People don't need to look for another reason, the first one is still good enough.So when you are trying to figure out what that knocking or ticking noise coming from your car engine is....you simply have to come up with aplausible explanation as to what you think it might be, and go with that, without doing anymore research to find out what the real problem/truth is? The noise is only coming from one spot. As many plausible explanations there are, and no matter how many experts chyme in telling they know what it is, you still need to find the truth of the problem, and you do yourself a favor in continuing the research until you find the cause of the problem. Such it is with God. Until you can look yourself in the mirror and tell yourself with 100% conviction that you have found the one true God, gods, godesses....keep searching. I can only speak for myself - I have found that truth, I can say with 100% conviction that the God of the Bible is the one true God. Jesus is the only way to heaven and salvation is through him and him alone. His blood covers even those who have never heard his name. That is how powerful he is.

Yes.
Probably a little, but I understand decently enough even in the original Hebrew and Aramaic. Besides all I have is my understanding and limited time.
I want to find the Truth of God wherever that may be possible. That Truth though is not in evidence as of yet.The search continues brother.:up:

How about you? Are you simply not at a point where you can understand that what you think is so clear and obvious might legitimately not be clear and obvious to different rational people? Is there something holding you back from recognizing the fact that to non-Christians, you sound just like a true believer of any religion? I understand that. I get it. I was a skeptic too once upon a time, being an atheist and evolutionist for over 30 years of my life. So I can understand the doubting side. But I can't change the entire world. I can only change the world immediately around me. Those that I have contact with. And I pray that through me and my faith and the way I live my life that God will use that to move others to Him. I am simply the messenger, or the conduit, God does the rest. All I can do is be a good messenger, and I hope that I have.

Sorry, but there are more choices than that.

Recognize the stories as apocryphal and not really true. Rejecting as not true.

Accept him as one more miracles man amongst several from different faiths who have eyewitness accounts and marvel at the spiritual potential of humanity. Rejecting him as no different than any other.

Reject him as a false prophet ala deuteronomy 18. Rejecting.

Ignore him because there isn't enough reason to bother looking. Rejecting
It really all boils down to accepting or rejecting God. All you have done is categorized the reasons for rejecting the savior of the world.

It is a choice. Choose wisely because as you know......

Eterntiy is an awefully long time to be wrong.

Dolphan7

04-20-2009, 05:23 PM

Dolphan7 - I just had to respond to your 'theory' that 9/10 people coming out of universities are atheist or agnostic. Are you kidding me? A total of 1.6% of the population reported themselves as being atheist or agnostic in 2008 per the ARIS survey. (About 15% reported No religion)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States - Scroll down to the ARIS SurveyI can only tell you what I have witnessed myself in speaking or knowing college age kids or recently graduated young adults. The amount of atheists is increasing, and so are the agnostics.

eric1589

04-20-2009, 06:20 PM

and it makes perfect sense for D7 to make such an innacurrate statement because we all know how much time he spends traveling the country, surveying children about their religion.:rolleyes2:

give it a rest dude. you dont have to make up things to support your agenda.

aesop

04-21-2009, 01:34 AM

I can only tell you what I have witnessed myself in speaking or knowing college age kids or recently graduated young adults. The amount of atheists is increasing, and so are the agnostics.What are these differences you've noticed over the last 20 years or so? I'm sure the only difference is your age and perspective.

d-day

04-21-2009, 02:02 AM

Gotta love the product of our wonderful university system in this country.....Higher Education.

Talk about ignoring facts........

Just tell me how we got here (life on earth) and how you can create something out of nothing (the universe), and I will listen.

How is it so impossible that the universe wasn't always here but "god" was?

Marino613

04-21-2009, 02:29 AM

Your entire argument falls on this one word.

Did they dispute it? Or simply provide their own understanding? Two different issues. Do they continue in their attempts? Or are they finished? Like I said before, people can reject the bible for as many reasons as there are stars in the universe, but the bible still stands alone as the most unique document in human history. Many have tried to debunk, the best they can do is come up with plausibility or another source. That isn't enough to debunk the bible.
First of all, I use the term assumption diplomatically. I think fundamentalist Christians make plenty of assumptions themselves.

Please remember that my point was that Syborg's argument that the lack of scholarly disagreement over the the divinity of the bible does not constitute proof when such scholarly disagreement actually exists.

Obviously if you believe the Bible is true than you believe that anyone who thinks they debunked it is wrong. But since the divine truth of the bible is what is under scrutiny here, to claim the opposition hasn't debunked it is at best redundant. If the counter arguments are wrong, just say they are wrong. The tautology is not in any way shape or form a proof.

Furthermore, the claim that it is the "most unique document in human history" is rather strange. I don't mean to play games, but is it "more" unique than other documents? Uniqueness cannot be measured. I think the Bible is one of a kind, but I also think the Quran is one of a kind.

But there cannot be two truths. Either they are all false, or only one is true. Nothing in between. The bible still stands alone in that category. All others fall far short under scrutiny.
And just as many if not more have concluded that it is. There will always be skeptics. The bible has not been proven to be false, only personal non-belief in it based on what I believe to be shoddy research as I have found in almost all cases.Again, you are eluding my point rather than answering it. No one has debunked the Quran either and to the non-Christian/non-Muslim we end up having to sit through the same types of explanations and reconciliations by people convinced that their book is special and unique. People who believe the Bible is wrong, believe they have debunked it as much as you believe the Quran, the Bhagavad Gita and the Upanishads have been debunked.

That only one at most can be 100% true is irrelevant to the point that a claim that it hasn't been debunked is a useless redundant argument for Truth. They all make that claim and use the same unfalsifiable types of arguments to "explain contradictions".

My point is that - EDITED OUT FOR SPACEA Beautiful Explanation and Impassioned Testimony of Faith. Thanks, truly and I am not being facetious.

Still, I just have to disagree and state for the record that the claim that it isn't about contradiction or contravening evidence is unfair and in my understanding untrue. Even if we encounter the same set of data, there is generally room for interpretation of the evidence in different reasonable ways.

Or to put it in an argument that you have used so craftily, no one has debunked Atheism or Agnosticism, and those who claim they have just haven't gone through the evidence or opened themselves up to that possibility.

While I envy your certainty in some ways, considering I have seen it from people of other faiths whose foundational works are just as "unique" as the bible (your imperialistic attitude about the world changing aspects of the Bible seem to ignore the amount of impact the Quran, Buddhist Sutras and Evolutionary Biology for that matter have had on the world.) I am not really moved by it.

Finally, your pointing out "rejection" is a perfect example of where one can use further unfair tautologies. Indeed, I could turn this around and say that you are rejecting the saints of other traditions, rejecting the possibility that Jesus is a false prophet, rejecting the possibility that human beings tell mythical stories about their heroes, rejecting the possibility that people don't care enough to bother rejecting Jesus, rejecting a non-theistic understanding of the world, rejecting the clear truth of the Quran/Upanishads/Jewish interpretation of the Hebrew Bible/Buddhist Sutras, and so on and so on. Something, or SOMEONE (Satan?), is clouding the minds of Fundamentalist Christians to accepting any of these possibilities.

Finally, the proof of Jesus in the OT is, in my opinion, not about contradictions or conflicts. There isn't really great evidence of it besides shoddy (or creatively inspired) rereadings. I will gladly go through those with you if you like.

aesop

04-21-2009, 01:35 PM

How is it so impossible that the universe wasn't always here but "god" was?He basically already stated the agnostic standpoint in that he doesn't know how life could come out of nowhere and is waiting for an answer.

Dolphan7

04-21-2009, 01:35 PM

What are these differences you've noticed over the last 20 years or so? I'm sure the only difference is your age and perspective.If you are so sure, then why ask the question?

Dolphan7

04-21-2009, 01:41 PM

How is it so impossible that the universe wasn't always here but "god" was?Because matter requires a beginning, or a creator, while the concept of God or The Creator is that He has always been, not having a beginning or an end. Being an all powerful entity, omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscience it stands to reason that a being such as this stands outside the barrriers of matter, not the other way around.

Dolphan7

04-21-2009, 01:43 PM

He basically already stated the agnostic standpoint in that he doesn't know how life could come out of nowhere and is waiting for an answer.Umm...please don't speak for me. I am not an agnostic. I know where life came from.:up:

DuderinoN703

04-21-2009, 05:09 PM

Because matter requires a beginning, or a creator, while the concept of God or The Creator is that He has always been, not having a beginning or an end. Being an all powerful entity, omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscience it stands to reason that a being such as this stands outside the barrriers of matter, not the other way around.

What was God doing before he created everything?

Dolphan7

04-21-2009, 05:24 PM

What was God doing before he created everything?Playing chess with Jesus.

eric1589

04-21-2009, 06:18 PM

D7,

you have NOT been able to back up ANYTHING you have said, thus far. you speak as though what you think is true. you forget that truth is different then assumptions. truth has to be proven... not just believed.

eric1589

04-21-2009, 06:29 PM

one great fact that d7 fails to comprehend is that all of these things "confusing people" wont go away. anything that is true will stand up to them.

you cant claim to have the truth if, in order to believe it, you must ignore anything not supporting it.

if you need to ignore the rest of the world and anything that goes against WHAT YOU WERE TOLD... you probably weren't told the truth. especially if continuing discoveries are being made that disprove what you believe.

that just sounds like common sense to me.

remember d7, "the truth shall set you free."
it wont tell you to cover you ears and ignore the real world.

Jimi

04-21-2009, 06:46 PM

Eric your not bringing anything to the table.

I have seen no proof of anything, just constant bashing of religious views from you.

Marino613

04-21-2009, 06:48 PM

Because matter requires a beginning, or a creator, while the concept of God or The Creator is that He has always been, not having a beginning or an end. Being an all powerful entity, omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscience it stands to reason that a being such as this stands outside the barrriers of matter, not the other way around.

We discussed this already in the beginning of time thread. Matter/energy requires a beginning but that doesn't mean its beginning is not in earlier instances of matter/energy, which in turn has its beginning in earlier instances of matter and energy. You don't need to posit something above matter/energy to find a beginning. Things come into being and dissipate everyday.

The only problem with this point of view is the big bang doesn't let us see or deduce what happened before it.

Marino613

04-21-2009, 08:20 PM

So when you are trying to figure out what that knocking or ticking noise coming from your car engine is....you simply have to come up with aplausible explanation as to what you think it might be, and go with that, without doing anymore research to find out what the real problem/truth is? The noise is only coming from one spot. As many plausible explanations there are, and no matter how many experts chyme in telling they know what it is, you still need to find the truth of the problem, and you do yourself a favor in continuing the research until you find the cause of the problem. Such it is with God. Until you can look yourself in the mirror and tell yourself with 100% conviction that you have found the one true God, gods, godesses....keep searching.

I didn't respond to this point because I thought it irrelevant to the original question about what constitutes proof. In essence, I agree that two plausible explanations are not a reason to stop searching. But that goes both ways. A plausible explanation of a contradiction that isn't a strong dismissal of the alternative option (namely that the contradiction still exists) demands that one be a bit more humble about someone taking the opposite point of view.

The funny thing is that I actually have deep conviction. I am about as convinced I think I will ever be that the bible is not the 100% word of God and that neither Judaism nor Christianity has the claim to exclusive truth. Right now I am trying to figure out whether or not God exists and whether classical religion has tapped into any of that Truth.

eric1589

04-21-2009, 08:21 PM

Eric your not bringing anything to the table.

I have seen no proof of anything, just constant bashing of religious views from you.

just because you dont like what's on your plate, doesn't mean that i didnt "bring anything to the table."

i havent made any ridiculous claims that anyone has asked me to prove.

i dont recall bashing any religions. just questioning them and some of their followers excuses, contradictions and claims.

you made 3 points here.
1st. you're wrong about
2nd. is irrelevant
3rd. you're wrong about and obviously reflects your dipleasure with what i have to say on the subject.

Dolphan7

04-21-2009, 08:40 PM

We discussed this already in the beginning of time thread. Matter/energy requires a beginning but that doesn't mean its beginning is not in earlier instances of matter/energy, which in turn has its beginning in earlier instances of matter and energy. You don't need to posit something above matter/energy to find a beginning. Things come into being and dissipate everyday.I remember the discussion. You still have the same problem though. Matter cannot come into existence from non-matter, all on it's own. It must come from something else. It must have a beginning and eventually an end according to the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics. It begs of something outside those parameters that has the capability to bring matter into existence. You can push back the beginning, but you haven't resolved how the beginning ever happened in the first place.

The only problem with this point of view is the big bang doesn't let us see or deduce what happened before it.Maybe because there isn't anything before the big bang?

eric1589

04-21-2009, 08:53 PM

the truth is that man invented religion to answer those unanswerable questions. many men created many different religions. some grew faster than others. some grew stronger and more popular than others.

some persuaded their people to destroy or convert non believers and believers of other stories. some convinced people that it was their duty to bring recruits. some used those recruits to push a world wide quest to recruit even more and silence those who opposed.

all would be nothing without their recruiters. for none of the recruits acknowledge the fact that none of them have seen anything for themselves. none of them have been given anything except the words of other recruits before them. All of them have been taught to fear being wrong in their beliefs to be the most condemning conclusion. All have been motivated solely by the testimony of those who were taught before them.

eric1589

04-21-2009, 09:16 PM

but the answer to that question doesnt even matter when you have no way to find that answer yet.

just because one side has an written answer doesnt mean its the right answer. just because one side has yet to come up with an answer, doesnt make it any less valid then the other's answer.

nobody has come up with a way to verify either answer. there is no deadline to answer the question. just because some people are happy with either side doesnt mean they are right. there is no authority to answer to. but some people take it upon themselves to make themselves and authority. those are the people to avoid.

remember.
according to people:

all the planets we could see and the sun used to orbit the earth, just like the moon.
the earth used to be the center of the universe.
the earth used to be flat.

just because another person tells you something, it doesnt make it true. you yourself should verify it, not just believe it, BEFORE you share it.

Marino613

04-21-2009, 10:07 PM

I remember the discussion. You still have the same problem though. Matter cannot come into existence from non-matter, all on it's own. It must come from something else. It must have a beginning and eventually an end according to the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics. It begs of something outside those parameters that has the capability to bring matter into existence. You can push back the beginning, but you haven't resolved how the beginning ever happened in the first place.

If you assume a straight up Einsteinien version of a cyclic universe than you are right. But there are other theories that are current in the scientific community like those of Baum and Frampton (which would make for an awesome rocked out version of the Wizard of Oz, but I digress). But there is a very real possibility that a big crunch could obviate the issue of the first and second laws of thermodynamics.

On this point I ave to agree with Eric. We don't need to assume an answer, but to research the answers.

Maybe because there isn't anything before the big bang?

Maybe. or maybe there is. we can't know with our current technologies. Why rush an answer when we can continue to experiment and research till we find good answers that aren't mere guesswork.

Marino613

04-21-2009, 10:15 PM

the truth is that man invented religion to answer those unanswerable questions.

I think that is a little too reductionist. Religion is much much more than bad science. Sir James Frazier was one of the earliest to suggest that approach but Wittgenstein and others have leveled very obvious responses to it. Clearly religion has several manifestations and not all are tied up with literal myths of our origins.

People really need to read William James the variety of religious experience. Still the best book on the subject ever.

eric1589

04-21-2009, 10:56 PM

ok. some people just wanted a way to control the masses.

Marino613

04-21-2009, 11:13 PM

ok. some people just wanted a way to control the masses.

I really don't want to open up a two front war here :)

I will leave by suggesting that just as you so rightly call for authentic examination of the questions of biology and physics, reminding us that science should not assume answers from anecdote and myth and instead should rely upon study, experimentation, peer review and so forth, so too we should recognize that anthropologists, sociologists, historians, psychologists, and philosophers of religion have written extensively about religion and religious life using whatever methods are best available to the social sciences. These methods also attempt to be rigorous like their peers in the physical sciences. It has been a long time since these largely secular academics have resorted to oversimplified and reductionist descriptions of religious life.

Dolphan7

04-22-2009, 01:28 AM

I didn't respond to this point because I thought it irrelevant to the original question about what constitutes proof. In essence, I agree that two plausible explanations are not a reason to stop searching. But that goes both ways. A plausible explanation of a contradiction that isn't a strong dismissal of the alternative option (namely that the contradiction still exists) demands that one be a bit more humble about someone taking the opposite point of view.

The funny thing is that I actually have deep conviction. I am about as convinced I think I will ever be that the bible is not the 100% word of God and that neither Judaism nor Christianity has the claim to exclusive truth. Right now I am trying to figure out whether or not God exists and whether classical religion has tapped into any of that Truth.Well I certainly respect your perspective, although I believe that you have it wrong. The good news is you appear to be continually searching.

You are convinced the bible isn't the word of God. I am convinced it is, with 100% certainty.

One of us is wrong.

This reminds me of a saying:

I would rather live my life as if there is a God and find out there isn't, than
to live my life as if there isn't a God, and find out there is.

Dolphan7

04-22-2009, 02:32 AM

First of all, I use the term assumption diplomatically. I think fundamentalist Christians make plenty of assumptions themselves.

Please remember that my point was that Syborg's argument that the lack of scholarly disagreement over the the divinity of the bible does not constitute proof when such scholarly disagreement actually exists.
Disagreement is obvious. Of course there is disagreement, otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation. Disagreement on the continuity of the bible is not disproving the bible however. Providing contradictions that under scrutiny are found to be non contradictions isn't disproving the bible either. Suggesting alternative sources of the bible isn't disproving the bible. All you are referring to is disagreements. You can have disagreements about what is causing that sound your car is making. That doesn't disprove anything. Christians believe the bible is the word of God written by inspired men. Until you or anyone else can provide proof, not disagreements, that the bible is false and written by men and not God, and that Jesus never existed or at the very least didn't do what he did, .....then the bible stands undisputed. Anyone who could look at the bible and think that this great work could have been perpetrated by mere men is really missing the beauty of the scriptures, and the impossibility that mere men could devise such a work with such continuity on so many levels.

Obviously if you believe the Bible is true than you believe that anyone who thinks they debunked it is wrong. But since the divine truth of the bible is what is under scrutiny here, to claim the opposition hasn't debunked it is at best redundant. If the counter arguments are wrong, just say they are wrong. The tautology is not in any way shape or form a proof.

Furthermore, the claim that it is the "most unique document in human history" is rather strange. I don't mean to play games, but is it "more" unique than other documents? Uniqueness cannot be measured. I think the Bible is one of a kind, but I also think the Quran is one of a kind.

Again, you are eluding my point rather than answering it. No one has debunked the Quran either and to the non-Christian/non-Muslim we end up having to sit through the same types of explanations and reconciliations by people convinced that their book is special and unique. People who believe the Bible is wrong, believe they have debunked it as much as you believe the Quran, the Bhagavad Gita and the Upanishads have been debunked. The Quran has been debunked. It was written centuries after the bible was completed. It was written by a man, a madman, and he died and we know where the bones are, plus the fact that is not only copies from the bible, but it copies it with contradiction. This document isn't of God, but of a fallible man. As far as the hindu and bhuddist source documents....a bunch of rambling incoherent sayings that speak of several contradicting attributes about God, salvation, hell etc....Again...written by men who we know have bones in the ground. Show me Jesus bones.

That only one at most can be 100% true is irrelevant to the point that a claim that it hasn't been debunked is a useless redundant argument for Truth. They all make that claim and use the same unfalsifiable types of arguments to "explain contradictions". Only one religion can be true. That isn't a proof of anything, nor was it meant to be. It is just a simple statement one must ponder in evaluating ones purpose on this planet. There can only be one truth, or no truth. There cannot be many truths. The bible proves itself as the work of the one true God. People simply need to accept or reject it's message.

A Beautiful Explanation and Impassioned Testimony of Faith. Thanks, truly and I am not being facetious.

Still, I just have to disagree and state for the record that the claim that it isn't about contradiction or contravening evidence is unfair and in my understanding untrue. Even if we encounter the same set of data, there is generally room for interpretation of the evidence in different reasonable ways. Of course there will be disagreement and multiple interpretations. But what is important is the original meaning. There can only be one original meaning. You tell you son to go pick up the mess in the back yard. He thinks you mean the garbage near the trash can. But you mean not only that plus the litter around the garden and the toys on the sidewalk. You see...he interpreted your words, yet didn't understand your original intent and meaning. Happens all the time. That is what careful study will do. How many men will rush through the assembly instructions of a toy or something, or not at all, and end up having to stop and take the time to read the instructions over again and more thoroughly because the widgit just didn't turn out the way it was supposed to. Do you not study the parts of an engine before you attempt to tear it apart and rebuild it? The widgit needed to be assembled as per the mfgs instructions. The engine needs to be torn apart nad rebuilt to the original mfg specs in order to work properly. Reading the bible won't get you God's original meaning or intent. One must study it thoroughly to understand what God is saying. It isn't something that you can get in a semester of college, or by goggling bible contradictions on the internet. It is a lifetime of learning if you ask me. I have learned so much over the years, and I still learn new stuff all the time. It is an amazing work!

Or to put it in an argument that you have used so craftily, no one has debunked Atheism or Agnosticism, and those who claim they have just haven't gone through the evidence or opened themselves up to that possibility.Who cares? They are not on trial here. No one cares to debunk them.

While I envy your certainty in some ways, considering I have seen it from people of other faiths whose foundational works are just as "unique" as the bible (your imperialistic attitude about the world changing aspects of the Bible seem to ignore the amount of impact the Quran, Buddhist Sutras and Evolutionary Biology for that matter have had on the world.) I am not really moved by it. Right. Islamic law degrades women, keeps people in poverty and oppression and teaches radical ideas to it's subjects, to name just a few. Hinduism and bhudism have impoverised an entire Indian subcontinent that if it were not for their religion would have a way out of their food crisis by allowing people to eat the sacred animals they think are re-incarnated people, just to name one. Evolutionary biology, that gave us people like Hitler and pol pot and othe rfine upstanding dictatorial butchers. Thanks for that. Christianity has done more than any other religion in the world in helping people eat, get clothing, shelter, jobs, counseling, rehab etc..... and the list goes on and on. Our justice system, one of the best in the world if not the best, is based on biblical principles from the OT. This nation that has saved the worlds proverbial but in two world wars is by far a christian nation, whose people believe and abide by the simple Jesus teaching of helping out your fellow man. This christian nation and many others give more to the world that the world gives back, all because on one book. That book the bible stands alone. It changes people and nations, and it has changed our world for the better...far far more than anything else.

Finally, your pointing out "rejection" is a perfect example of where one can use further unfair tautologies. Indeed, I could turn this around and say that you are rejecting the saints of other traditions, rejecting the possibility that Jesus is a false prophet, rejecting the possibility that human beings tell mythical stories about their heroes, rejecting the possibility that people don't care enough to bother rejecting Jesus, rejecting a non-theistic understanding of the world, rejecting the clear truth of the Quran/Upanishads/Jewish interpretation of the Hebrew Bible/Buddhist Sutras, and so on and so on. Something, or SOMEONE (Satan?), is clouding the minds of Fundamentalist Christians to accepting any of these possibilities.You still can't get around the fact of "What are you going to do about Jesus?" You either have to accept him or reject him. Sounds to me like you have rejected him.

Finally, the proof of Jesus in the OT is, in my opinion, not about contradictions or conflicts. There isn't really great evidence of it besides shoddy (or creatively inspired) rereadings. I will gladly go through those with you if you like.I am not sure what you are referring to here. Are you saying that there is no mention of Jesus in the OT? Please calrify.

Marino613

04-22-2009, 08:33 AM

Disagreement is obvious. Of course there is disagreement, otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation. Disagreement on the continuity of the bible is not disproving the bible however. Providing contradictions that under scrutiny are found to be non contradictions isn't disproving the bible either. Suggesting alternative sources of the bible isn't disproving the bible. All you are referring to is disagreements. You can have disagreements about what is causing that sound your car is making. That doesn't disprove anything. Christians believe the bible is the word of God written by inspired men. Until you or anyone else can provide proof, not disagreements, that the bible is false and written by men and not God, and that Jesus never existed or at the very least didn't do what he did, .....then the bible stands undisputed. Anyone who could look at the bible and think that this great work could have been perpetrated by mere men is really missing the beauty of the scriptures, and the impossibility that mere men could devise such a work with such continuity on so many levels.

Please go back and reread what I was responding to in my original post. I never claimed it disproved the bible. I was refuting the idea that one can "prove" the bible's divinity by stating that everyone who has tried to debunk it has failed. That is a tautology.

AS to your claim that men could not have accomplished it. I think men have done many amazing things. I don't think the bible is more beautiful then many ancient and modern works. more cohesive or more complex. It simply isn't as unique as you believe it to be. I have found the same sense of awe and reverence with other works.

The Quran has been debunked. It was written centuries after the bible was completed. It was written by a man, a madman, and he died and we know where the bones are, plus the fact that is not only copies from the bible, but it copies it with contradiction. This document isn't of God, but of a fallible man. As far as the hindu and bhuddist source documents....a bunch of rambling incoherent sayings that speak of several contradicting attributes about God, salvation, hell etc....Again...written by men who we know have bones in the ground. Show me Jesus bones.
I am sorry but that is asinine. "Show me the bones"? That isn't proof of anything. That you assume the Quran was written by a madman is your opinion. That has definitely not been proven. And as you say by the Bible. Those who have attempted to prove that have been debunked about as well as those who defend the bible have debunked its detractors. That you think Sutras are rambling and incoherent just shows that you never "opened yourself up to the possibility that they are truth" fro ma transcendent source. But more deeply than that, it shows you have never really studied them with serious openness. Anyone who has studied Buddhist Sutras would know that they are incredibly coherent and frankly less contradictory then the Bible. You clearly have not given these other works their due, but have dismissed them even more causally then those you claim have dismissed the bible have done. I am sorry to say this, but there is zero credibility in the the claim that these works have been "debunked" in comparison to the Bible.

Only one religion can be true. That isn't a proof of anything, nor was it meant to be. It is just a simple statement one must ponder in evaluating ones purpose on this planet. There can only be one truth, or no truth. There cannot be many truths. The bible proves itself as the work of the one true God. People simply need to accept or reject it's message.
THe Bible doesn't do that effectively to many rational serious observers. It is about as effective as many other religious texts. Moreover, the assertion that a large variagated document can't have both truth and falsehood in it, such that one cannot accept some of its message or be inspired by it like many other forms of religious peotry and narrative is a really limited an unnecessary point of view.

Of course there will be disagreement and multiple interpretations. But what is important is the original meaning. There can only be one original meaning. You tell you son to go pick up the mess in the back yard. He thinks you mean the garbage near the trash can. But you mean not only that plus the litter around the garden and the toys on the sidewalk. You see...he interpreted your words, yet didn't understand your original intent and meaning. Happens all the time. That is what careful study will do. How many men will rush through the assembly instructions of a toy or something, or not at all, and end up having to stop and take the time to read the instructions over again and more thoroughly because the widgit just didn't turn out the way it was supposed to. Do you not study the parts of an engine before you attempt to tear it apart and rebuild it? The widgit needed to be assembled as per the mfgs instructions. The engine needs to be torn apart nad rebuilt to the original mfg specs in order to work properly. Reading the bible won't get you God's original meaning or intent. One must study it thoroughly to understand what God is saying. It isn't something that you can get in a semester of college, or by goggling bible contradictions on the internet. It is a lifetime of learning if you ask me. I have learned so much over the years, and I still learn new stuff all the time. It is an amazing work!
I also learn new amazing and inspiring things from the bible all the time in the course of my lifetime. But it does contradict itself and anyone who actually has read it, especially in the original knows that as a work it was given to multiple interpretations, metaphors and double entedrees in addition to many portions which are clear. The analogy of a great work of writing to taking out the garbage is almost blasphemously limiting. Many parts of the bible were never intended to have only one meaning. If people weren't stuck on the idea that it has to be the unique unchallenged word of God they would see the beauty of it in a whole new light.

Furthermore, I think I need to explain something about the concept of interpretation. That many portions of the bible were meant to have one meaning is irrelvant to the fact that that true meaning is subject to interpretation. I am not saying that portions of the bible don't have an objective meaning but I am saying that we cannot know with certainty what that meaning is in many cases and that therefore different interpretations are equally legitimate even if only one of them at most can be correct. Unless you can prove which one is correct then all you are left with is interpretation. That you require one to be in a relationship with God to interpret it correctly only underlines this point all the more. It means that one who is not in that relationship can't just rely on the objective text in front of him.

Moreover, having studied texts of other religions with similar fervor, I can say that the ones I have seen and returned to again and again are also incredibly inspiring and inspired.

Who cares? They are not on trial here. No one cares to debunk them.
You missed my point again. The bible isn't on trial either. I am responding to the idea that the fact that the Bible has "never" been debunked is some sort of proof that it must be divine. Atheism has never been debunked either. By the method presented originally by syborg, this should be proof of atheism.

Right. Islamic law degrades women, keeps people in poverty and oppression and teaches radical ideas to it's subjects, to name just a few. Hinduism and bhudism have impoverised an entire Indian subcontinent that if it were not for their religion would have a way out of their food crisis by allowing people to eat the sacred animals they think are re-incarnated people, just to name one. Evolutionary biology, that gave us people like Hitler and pol pot and othe rfine upstanding dictatorial butchers. Thanks for that. Christianity has done more than any other religion in the world in helping people eat, get clothing, shelter, jobs, counseling, rehab etc..... and the list goes on and on. Our justice system, one of the best in the world if not the best, is based on biblical principles from the OT. This nation that has saved the worlds proverbial but in two world wars is by far a christian nation, whose people believe and abide by the simple Jesus teaching of helping out your fellow man. This christian nation and many others give more to the world that the world gives back, all because on one book. That book the bible stands alone. It changes people and nations, and it has changed our world for the better...far far more than anything else.

Wow! I really don't know what to say to this. Really? The history you present here is baseless on so many levels I am not sure where to begin.
Let's see, burning "witches" at the stake, burning heretics at the stake, the 100 years war, the entire european imperial history of raping the world's wealth, the purchase of slaves (biblically founded) oh and biblical defense of the notion that Blacks are inferior. Oh, should I mention the anti-semitism that the NT served as the foundation of? And by that I don't just mean calling someone a name, but murder, pillaging, rape, and expulsion. Women's equality under law is a modern secular phenomenon. For most of the history of Chrisitanity, women were treated just as badly and in some ways worse than in muslim countries. The OT has murdering sabbath desecrators, murdering gays, whiping out whole towns of people, destroying the religious sanctuaries of other peoples, and slavery. Right, I forgot to add the forced conversion and murder of european pagans.

Then to add, the idea that buddhism and hinduism have impoverished a country is ridiculous. I am not defending the caste system and many of the other problematic elements of these religions, but to ignore the role of Western Chrisitan control of these countries is asinine. To blame evolution for Hitler when so many of his followers were protestants Lutherans and catholics who imbibed their anti-semitism from the NT is offensive.

That Christians are involved in very good things too is fine, but if I were a Jew anywehere between the 7th century and the 17th century I would much rather live with muslims than christians.

Finally, our legal system does have a lot of basis in the OT, but it also has basis in pagan roman law as well. Many of our founding fathers were Christians but plenty of the big movers and shakers were Deists too.

You still can't get around the fact of "What are you going to do about Jesus?" You either have to accept him or reject him. Sounds to me like you have rejected him.
True. I concede this. As of this moment based on the evidence, I see no reason to accept him. Call that rejection if you will.

I am not sure what you are referring to here. Are you saying that there is no mention of Jesus in the OT? Please calrify.Pretty much. Although I am more concerned here with the concept that these references prove the divinity of the bible which is a somewhat different argument. I listed the nature of the various rejections of the notion that Jesus is in the bible in an earlier post, but I didn't go into the specific verses in question. I wil gladly do that though.

syborg

04-22-2009, 09:58 AM

Well this 'debate' is going nowhere fast it is just statement and counter statement with no submission or real admission on either part. .

The last post by Marino13 says that other texts are less contradictory than the bible. . I have to tell you the bible IS NOT contradictory.. it may appear to be so to someone with a lack of true understanding but in fact it is not.
as for the rest of the diatribe.
we know Jesus existed so knowing that you have to examine HIS claims. .
the bible is unrefutable and uncontradictory so you have to study the truth of it for yourself. .

Other than that I have little else to say. .

aesop

04-22-2009, 11:48 AM

Umm...please don't speak for me. I am not an agnostic. I know where life came from.:up:No. You don't know for sure. You have FAITH that you know what happened. It was passed down to you from generation to generation, much like a game of 'telephone'. And we all know how that game works out.

aesop

04-22-2009, 12:00 PM

If you are so sure, then why ask the question?Cop out.

Dolphan7

04-22-2009, 12:46 PM

No. You don't know for sure. You have FAITH that you know what happened. It was passed down to you from generation to generation, much like a game of 'telephone'. And we all know how that game works out.Yes. Yes I do know for sure. Because you cannot fathom how I can know for sure doesn't take anything away from the fact that I do indeed know for sure without a doubt with 100% conviction.

Dolphan7

04-22-2009, 12:46 PM

Cop out.Sorry. Were you really interested in an answer?

Dolphan7

04-22-2009, 01:57 PM

Please go back and reread what I was responding to in my original post. I never claimed it disproved the bible. I was refuting the idea that one can "prove" the bible's divinity by stating that everyone who has tried to debunk it has failed. That is a tautology. I don't believe I ever made the claim to divinity based on it not being disproven. My point was that it simply lends itself to being the greatest work of all time, unique in so many ways and on so many levels. It stands up to scrutiny time after time, which is a testament to it's power and authority and authenticity. It should make people marvel at it's completeness, longevity and continuity. Sadly most will reject it.

AS to your claim that men could not have accomplished it. I think men have done many amazing things. I don't think the bible is more beautiful then many ancient and modern works. more cohesive or more complex. It simply isn't as unique as you believe it to be. I have found the same sense of awe and reverence with other works.That is your personal belief, but when you take the accomplished work of the bible and it's impact on the world it is second to none. It doesn't matter what you or I belive about it, history shows it's impact. That is the point. It is such a powerful work.

I am sorry but that is asinine. "Show me the bones"? That isn't proof of anything. That you assume the Quran was written by a madman is your opinion. That has definitely not been proven. And as you say by the Bible. Those who have attempted to prove that have been debunked about as well as those who defend the bible have debunked its detractors. That you think Sutras are rambling and incoherent just shows that you never "opened yourself up to the possibility that they are truth" fro ma transcendent source. But more deeply than that, it shows you have never really studied them with serious openness. Anyone who has studied Buddhist Sutras would know that they are incredibly coherent and frankly less contradictory then the Bible. You clearly have not given these other works their due, but have dismissed them even more causally then those you claim have dismissed the bible have done. I am sorry to say this, but there is zero credibility in the the claim that these works have been "debunked" in comparison to the Bible. Sounds like I hit a nerve. Yes it is my opinion that mohamed was a madman. But the fact remains, he plagiarized the bible, and poorly, and he died. As with the writers of sutras and all that...dead. The fact remains....show me the bones of Jesus. It really is a simple request. Show me where he is burried.

THe Bible doesn't do that effectively to many rational serious observers. It is about as effective as many other religious texts. Moreover, the assertion that a large variagated document can't have both truth and falsehood in it, such that one cannot accept some of its message or be inspired by it like many other forms of religious peotry and narrative is a really limited an unnecessary point of view.I repeat. The bible has done more to change our world than any other work of antiquity. Second to none. It is a testamant of the power within it's pages, to those rational and serious observers of course.

I also learn new amazing and inspiring things from the bible all the time in the course of my lifetime. But it does contradict itself and anyone who actually has read it, especially in the original knows that as a work it was given to multiple interpretations, metaphors and double entedrees in addition to many portions which are clear. The analogy of a great work of writing to taking out the garbage is almost blasphemously limiting. Many parts of the bible were never intended to have only one meaning. If people weren't stuck on the idea that it has to be the unique unchallenged word of God they would see the beauty of it in a whole new light.Blasphemous? Your whole paragraph is blasphemous on so many levels. But that is your belief and you are entitled to it.

Furthermore, I think I need to explain something about the concept of interpretation. That many portions of the bible were meant to have one meaning is irrelvant to the fact that that true meaning is subject to interpretation. I am not saying that portions of the bible don't have an objective meaning but I am saying that we cannot know with certainty what that meaning is in many cases and that therefore different interpretations are equally legitimate even if only one of them at most can be correct. Unless you can prove which one is correct then all you are left with is interpretation. That you require one to be in a relationship with God to interpret it correctly only underlines this point all the more. It means that one who is not in that relationship can't just rely on the objective text in front of him.I disagree. We can know the original meaning, through the process of sound exegesis. It doesn't mean there are zero difficulties, but contradictions? Not when you peel the onion. Do you get the meaning when you read the Quran at face value? The Vedas? Don't you require more study to understand the true meanings?

Moreover, having studied texts of other religions with similar fervor, I can say that the ones I have seen and returned to again and again are also incredibly inspiring and inspired. I am sure they have impacted your life, but that doesn't mean they are in any way true or as powerful as the bible is to the world.

You missed my point again. The bible isn't on trial either. I am responding to the idea that the fact that the Bible has "never" been debunked is some sort of proof that it must be divine. Atheism has never been debunked either. By the method presented originally by syborg, this should be proof of atheism. Argue that with Syborg then.

Wow! I really don't know what to say to this. Really? The history you present here is baseless on so many levels I am not sure where to begin.
Let's see, burning "witches" at the stake, burning heretics at the stake, the 100 years war, the entire european imperial history of raping the world's wealth, the purchase of slaves (biblically founded) oh and biblical defense of the notion that Blacks are inferior. Oh, should I mention the anti-semitism that the NT served as the foundation of? And by that I don't just mean calling someone a name, but murder, pillaging, rape, and expulsion. Women's equality under law is a modern secular phenomenon. For most of the history of Chrisitanity, women were treated just as badly and in some ways worse than in muslim countries. The OT has murdering sabbath desecrators, murdering gays, whiping out whole towns of people, destroying the religious sanctuaries of other peoples, and slavery. Right, I forgot to add the forced conversion and murder of european pagans.Again you miss the point. You are referring to the followers of Jesus acting badly. For every instance of evil things being done in the name of the christian God, I can point to the chapter and verse that says they were arong for doing it. As far as the OT references, you betray your lack of knowledge of the bible, one who claims to have studied it thoroughly. You have no idea what you are talking about. You fail to comprehend the context of the OT.

Then to add, the idea that buddhism and hinduism have impoverished a country is ridiculous. I am not defending the caste system and many of the other problematic elements of these religions, but to ignore the role of Western Chrisitan control of these countries is asinine. To blame evolution for Hitler when so many of his followers were protestants Lutherans and catholics who imbibed their anti-semitism from the NT is offensive. Your sidestepping. The Hindu and Bhuddist belief system impoverish the entire country of India, not because it's followers don't understand the scriptures, but because the scriptures teach it! Same with Islam. And it doesn't matter that Hitlers followers were christians, I wasn't referring to his followers, but to the man himself, who was heavily influenced by darwinian macro evolution - at the expense of 6 million Jews and millions of others. Not to mention the entire belief system of evolution states that there is no truth as we are all here by random chance, creating an every man for himself mentality, selfishness, and an increasing lack of morals. When those things take their toll on society, you get anarchy and total chaos. No thanks. The bible has had such an impact on our world in a positive way, more than anything else in history. Second to none. It is that powerful.

That Christians are involved in very good things too is fine, but if I were a Jew anywehere between the 7th century and the 17th century I would much rather live with muslims than christians. Again, equating the followers with the actual written Word. There is no doubt people screw things up and take the bible out of context, but the meaning of scripture is clear and pure.

Finally, our legal system does have a lot of basis in the OT, but it also has basis in pagan roman law as well. Many of our founding fathers were Christians but plenty of the big movers and shakers were Deists too.Predominantly Judeo Christian.

True. I concede this. As of this moment based on the evidence, I see no reason to accept him. Call that rejection if you will. Noted.

Pretty much. Although I am more concerned here with the concept that these references prove the divinity of the bible which is a somewhat different argument. I listed the nature of the various rejections of the notion that Jesus is in the bible in an earlier post, but I didn't go into the specific verses in question. I wil gladly do that though.
The entire OT refers to a Messiah that God will send to the Jews for their salvation. Jesus was that Messiah. Point to whatever verse you like to argue that point if you like.

aesop

04-22-2009, 03:59 PM

Yes. Yes I do know for sure. Because you cannot fathom how I can know for sure doesn't take anything away from the fact that I do indeed know for sure without a doubt with 100% conviction.How exactly do you know? Had a meeting with John Edwards and spoke to the dead personally? Or because you've been brought up since before you could talk or form an intelligible opinion to believe so with such conviction?

No one knows for sure. To believe you do with no scientific evidence of any kind is plain ignorant. Most religious people I talk to will at least concede they aren't 100% sure, but that they have faith that they are right. That is more respectable and understandable, in my opinion.

aesop

04-22-2009, 04:02 PM

Since you do know for sure, please.. make me able to 'fathom' your superior, otherworldly intelligence. I'm more than open to believing in a higher power if something more than hearsay is used to prove it.

DuderinoN703

04-22-2009, 04:32 PM

Playing chess with Jesus.

Mmmm, so they had strategic ways to entertain before any and everything was created.

:chuckle:

Dolphan7

04-22-2009, 05:05 PM

How exactly do you know? Had a meeting with John Edwards and spoke to the dead personally? Or because you've been brought up since before you could talk or form an intelligible opinion to believe so with such conviction?

No one knows for sure. To believe you do with no scientific evidence of any kind is plain ignorant. Most religious people I talk to will at least concede they aren't 100% sure, but that they have faith that they are right. That is more respectable and understandable, in my opinion.Actually I was an Atheist and evolutionist for 30 years. Although there is much scientific evidence of God's creation, and much more evidence of design in the universe, you can't prove God with Science. To believe one can is just ignorance. Who says that God must be proven by science?

I know 100% for sure. You can either accept that or reject it, I don't care. But what you can't do is tell me what I believe in and how much I believe it. It may not seem possible to you, but that logic only applies to - You.

Can I convey that 100% confidence to someone like you? That is where faith comes in my friend. Convincing someone else of my convictions is where I can say that I am not 100% sure I can. See the difference?

Dolphan7

04-22-2009, 05:11 PM

Since you do know for sure, please.. make me able to 'fathom' your superior, otherworldly intelligence. I'm more than open to believing in a higher power if something more than hearsay is used to prove it.Well...you wouldn't be the first one to demand proof on a message board. I am not convinced you are in the slightest bit open minded. But if you are.....

Go read this forum and all the threads pertaining to God and his existence. If you have any questions just ask. I am not going to repeat what I and many other posters have posted over the years. If there is one thing that really puzzles you, then ask. If you simply want to make one post of all the reasons why God doesn't exist, like many have done, it will probably go unanswered.

eric1589

04-22-2009, 11:15 PM

Yes. Yes I do know for sure. Because you cannot fathom how I can know for sure doesn't take anything away from the fact that I do indeed know for sure without a doubt with 100% conviction.

i think i get it now. to the rest of the world it means they think they know something. but to d7 it means he actually knows. he is obviously special. he doesn't need things like truth or facts or evidence. he has the power to know things without them. he has the ability to know something without any way to prove it to anyone, including himself. or he at least has the ability to declare that he knows for sure. these are the only two possibilities. which one do you think is more likely?

or it could just be that his definition of the word "know" is obviously out of sync with the rest of the world. but surely he couldn't be the wrong one here. it must be the other billions of people who misunderstand this word... along with the words:
fact
truth
evidence
logic

we must all realize that when he uses these words, he uses his own definition for them. not the definition that almost everybody else on earth would use. i think that is the confusion leading to all these redundant pages of posts. he just says things that don't make sense to any of us. it doesn't have to make sense to any of us for him to say it. in his own little world he is completely reasonable and rational. remember, he doesn't need any proof, evidence, or facts to enable him to know this about himself... even if the rest of us don't know it.

Marino613

04-23-2009, 12:12 AM

I don't believe I ever made the claim to divinity based on it not being disproven.

No but as I have repeated again and again, the post of mine you responded to originally was in response to Syborg who indeed did make that claim.

That is your personal belief, but when you take the accomplished work of the bible and it's impact on the world it is second to none. It doesn't matter what you or I belive about it, history shows it's impact. That is the point. It is such a powerful work.
Thank you for restating your opinion as fact.

In Asia the Quran and the Sutras have had more impact and they are about half the world so go figure.

In the end, I am not sure how you could successfully find which text was the most impactful on history, but even it is the bible it doesn't mean these other texts didn't have major and positive impacts. SO did Aristotle, Plato, Newton, Egyptian Myths, Sumarian Myths, etc.

Sounds like I hit a nerve.
Please refrain from trying to figure out my personal feelings from a message board. You have no idea what I am thinking. These types of projections are the the only thing that will hit a nerve. I could have pointed the same thing out about you from the get go but it is shallow and shows poor arguing style.

Yes it is my opinion that mohamed was a madman. But the fact remains, he plagiarized the bible, and poorly, and he died. As with the writers of sutras and all that...dead. The fact remains....show me the bones of Jesus. It really is a simple request. Show me where he is burried.
Jesus died too. As did my great grandfather. No one has been able to find the bones of either. Maybe my great grandfather ascended to heaven and is the son of the living God? That would make me the son of the son of the son of the living Gof which has accrued me no benefits. Not even a trust fund.

Bedsides, the fact that the Buddha died isn't a big deal. He has reappeared to several witnesses in several places all over the world, much like Jesus... and Elvis. It is a poor argument.

The quran has a completely different writing style than the various books that make up the bible so it isn't complete plagiarism but is a reworking of the Bible as well as rabbinic midrashim. Of course, the bible quotes verbatim ugaritic passages but replaces ba'al with YHVH so all's fair. Anyway, people in the ancient world used each others sources all the time. Copyright and intellectual property was not such a major concern especially since the Quran was clearly writing a different account of the same stories.

I repeat. The bible has done more to change our world than any other work of antiquity. Second to none. It is a testamant of the power within it's pages, to those rational and serious observers of course.
I never disputed the power of the bible, just its uniqueness,even if by degree it has the most impact which is hard to prove. I also disagree that this should lead the observer to accept its divinity.

Blasphemous? Your whole paragraph is blasphemous on so many levels. But that is your belief and you are entitled to it.
Thanks.

I disagree. We can know the original meaning, through the process of sound exegesis. It doesn't mean there are zero difficulties, but contradictions? Not when you peel the onion. Do you get the meaning when you read the Quran at face value? The Vedas? Don't you require more study to understand the true meanings?
My point is that just because one can upon further meaning of all the above texts (thank you for admitting that one needs to actually study them before so casually dismissing them as you did. I accept the concession) find reconciliation to contradictions, doesn't mean those reconciliations aren't subject to interpretation themselves. If contradiction is as plausible an explanation as reconciliation and both leave reasonable doubt than a serious student will be faced with legitimate choices about how to proceed with interpretation.

I am sure they have impacted your life, but that doesn't mean they are in any way true or as powerful as the bible is to the world.
I agree. I am also sure the bible has impacted your life clearly, but that doesn't mean it is any way true either. how much impact it has had on the world relatively is truly secondary.

Argue that with Syborg then.
I was. You butted in and failed to notice that I was disagreeing with him. See my response to your first point in this post.

Again you miss the point. You are referring to the followers of Jesus acting badly. For every instance of evil things being done in the name of the christian God, I can point to the chapter and verse that says they were arong for doing it. As far as the OT references, you betray your lack of knowledge of the bible, one who claims to have studied it thoroughly. You have no idea what you are talking about. You fail to comprehend the context of the OT.
Funny that I know Muslims and Hindus who can say the same.

Second, you can claim I don't understand the OT but that is an example of an ad hominem argument and is irrelevant. If you want to do that, I will just counter that your Fundamentalist rose colored glasses have distorted your understanding and you are the one who is making the false claim to understanding the bible and history for that matter. I very much understand the context of the OT and I think it a revolutionary work for its time. I am claiming that other great religious texts also have contexts that make their more ethically challenging aspects more palatable.

Your sidestepping. The Hindu and Bhuddist belief system impoverish the entire country of India, not because it's followers don't understand the scriptures, but because the scriptures teach it! Same with Islam. And it doesn't matter that Hitlers followers were christians, I wasn't referring to his followers, but to the man himself, who was heavily influenced by darwinian macro evolution - at the expense of 6 million Jews and millions of others. Not to mention the entire belief system of evolution states that there is no truth as we are all here by random chance, creating an every man for himself mentality, selfishness, and an increasing lack of morals. When those things take their toll on society, you get anarchy and total chaos. No thanks. The bible has had such an impact on our world in a positive way, more than anything else in history. Second to none. It is that powerful.
Religion played some role in India's current poverty but no where near as strong a role as western colonialism. Just as the bible played a role in many atrocities performed in the name of Christ, whether you agree with their interpretations or not as did other non-Christian based factors.

Again, equating the followers with the actual written Word. There is no doubt people screw things up and take the bible out of context, but the meaning of scripture is clear and pure.
One, you did the same with the Quran and the Sutras.

Second, you are the one claiming that the bible is such a powerful text. The proof of power is in the pudding. Massive amounts of harm and suffering have been perpetrated by Christians in the name of Christ. I see how powerful the bible is when it lead to the dark ages of Europe and when more enlightened civilization was in the hands of Muslims for a millennium.

As to evolution, in addition to moral decay it has also lead to massive breakthroughs in medical science.

Predominantly Judeo Christian. I disagree although only partly in that much of Christian law as practiced by Christians throughout history was heavily influenced by Roman law. That is obvious when you think about it.

The entire OT refers to a Messiah that God will send to the Jews for their salvation. Jesus was that Messiah. Point to whatever verse you like to argue that point if you like.No really. The pleasure is mine. Please you decide which passage to use.

Marino613

04-23-2009, 12:15 AM

[QUOTE]Well this 'debate' is going nowhere fast it is just statement and conter statement with no submission or real admission on either part. .

I agree with that.

The last post by Marino13 says that other texts are less contradictory than the bible. . I have to tell you the bible IS NOT contradictory.. it may appear to be so to someone with a lack of true understanding but in fact it is not.
as for the rest of the diatribe.
we know Jesus existed so knowing that you have to examine HIS claims. .
the bible is unrefutable and uncontradictory so you have to study the truth of it for yourself. .

I disagree with that. There are contradictions and claims that are refutable.

Other than that I have little else to say. .

:up:

Dolphan7

04-23-2009, 01:08 AM

No but as I have repeated again and again, the post of mine you responded to originally was in response to Syborg who indeed did make that claim.

Thank you for restating your opinion as fact.

In Asia the Quran and the Sutras have had more impact and they are about half the world so go figure.

In the end, I am not sure how you could successfully find which text was the most impactful on history, but even it is the bible it doesn't mean these other texts didn't have major and positive impacts. SO did Aristotle, Plato, Newton, Egyptian Myths, Sumarian Myths, etc.

Please refrain from trying to figure out my personal feelings from a message board. You have no idea what I am thinking. These types of projections are the the only thing that will hit a nerve. I could have pointed the same thing out about you from the get go but it is shallow and shows poor arguing style.

Jesus died too. As did my great grandfather. No one has been able to find the bones of either. Maybe my great grandfather ascended to heaven and is the son of the living God? That would make me the son of the son of the son of the living Gof which has accrued me no benefits. Not even a trust fund.

Bedsides, the fact that the Buddha died isn't a big deal. He has reappeared to several witnesses in several places all over the world, much like Jesus... and Elvis. It is a poor argument.

The quran has a completely different writing style than the various books that make up the bible so it isn't complete plagiarism but is a reworking of the Bible as well as rabbinic midrashim. Of course, the bible quotes verbatim ugaritic passages but replaces ba'al with YHVH so all's fair. Anyway, people in the ancient world used each others sources all the time. Copyright and intellectual property was not such a major concern especially since the Quran was clearly writing a different account of the same stories.

I never disputed the power of the bible, just its uniqueness,even if by degree it has the most impact which is hard to prove. I also disagree that this should lead the observer to accept its divinity.

Thanks.

My point is that just because one can upon further meaning of all the above texts (thank you for admitting that one needs to actually study them before so casually dismissing them as you did. I accept the concession) find reconciliation to contradictions, doesn't mean those reconciliations aren't subject to interpretation themselves. If contradiction is as plausible an explanation as reconciliation and both leave reasonable doubt than a serious student will be faced with legitimate choices about how to proceed with interpretation.

I agree. I am also sure the bible has impacted your life clearly, but that doesn't mean it is any way true either. how much impact it has had on the world relatively is truly secondary.

I was. You butted in and failed to notice that I was disagreeing with him. See my response to your first point in this post.

Funny that I know Muslims and Hindus who can say the same.

Second, you can claim I don't understand the OT but that is an example of an ad hominem argument and is irrelevant. If you want to do that, I will just counter that your Fundamentalist rose colored glasses have distorted your understanding and you are the one who is making the false claim to understanding the bible and history for that matter. I very much understand the context of the OT and I think it a revolutionary work for its time. I am claiming that other great religious texts also have contexts that make their more ethically challenging aspects more palatable.

Religion played some role in India's current poverty but no where near as strong a role as western colonialism. Just as the bible played a role in many atrocities performed in the name of Christ, whether you agree with their interpretations or not as did other non-Christian based factors.

One, you did the same with the Quran and the Sutras.

Second, you are the one claiming that the bible is such a powerful text. The proof of power is in the pudding. Massive amounts of harm and suffering have been perpetrated by Christians in the name of Christ. I see how powerful the bible is when it lead to the dark ages of Europe and when more enlightened civilization was in the hands of Muslims for a millennium.

As to evolution, in addition to moral decay it has also lead to massive breakthroughs in medical science.

I disagree although only partly in that much of Christian law as practiced by Christians throughout history was heavily influenced by Roman law. That is obvious when you think about it.

No really. The pleasure is mine. Please you decide which passage to use.At this point there is not much more ground that needs to be covered. You have your opinions and there is probably nothing you can learn on a message board that will change that. Whenever you want to discuss that Jesus wasn't the messiah let me know. In the meantime keep looking for his bones for me. They seem to be missing.

Marino613

04-23-2009, 01:11 AM

At this point there is not much more ground that needs to be covered. You have your opinions and there is probably nothing you can learn on a message board that will change that. Whenever you want to discuss that Jesus wasn't the messiah let me know. In the meantime keep looking for his bones for me. They seem to be missing.

1) My great grandfathers bones are still missing as are the majority of humanities. it is really a weak argument.

2) I am happy to start whenever you want, but as the OT doesn't actually mention Jesus, I think the burden is upon you to produce those statements. So please, start with one. I am game. [Edit: I am primarily interested in addressing the argument that there are 300+ references that are fulfilled in the person of Jesus thus proving the divinity of the text and not bashing Christian inspired readings of the OT]

syborg

04-23-2009, 10:50 AM

[quote=syborg;1062921260]

I agree with that.

I disagree with that. There are contradictions and claims that are refutable.

:up:

*sigh* fine show me a contradiction or two then. . I would be very interested to see them ..

what claims from the bible are refutable then?

Again show me. . .

aesop

04-23-2009, 11:27 AM

Actually I was an Atheist and evolutionist for 30 years. Although there is much scientific evidence of God's creation, and much more evidence of design in the universe, you can't prove God with Science. To believe one can is just ignorance. Who says that God must be proven by science?

I know 100% for sure. You can either accept that or reject it, I don't care. But what you can't do is tell me what I believe in and how much I believe it. It may not seem possible to you, but that logic only applies to - You.

Can I convey that 100% confidence to someone like you? That is where faith comes in my friend. Convincing someone else of my convictions is where I can say that I am not 100% sure I can. See the difference?So what was it that made you realize God existed and convert from Atheism?

And what made you think evolution is incorrect?

Dolphan7

04-23-2009, 01:07 PM

So what was it that made you realize God existed and convert from Atheism?

And what made you think evolution is incorrect?I became a believer because the biblical model makes more common sense to me. I know those who will disagree, but when you add in the lack of definite evidence of the counter alternative of evolution and random chance, accidents so to speak...... it all makes much more sense.

Dolphan7

04-23-2009, 01:15 PM

There is one evolution I think is kinda cool.

Check it out

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMH0bHeiRNg

aesop

04-23-2009, 10:13 PM

I became a believer because the biblical model makes more common sense to me. I know those who will disagree, but when you add in the lack of definite evidence of the counter alternative of evolution and random chance, accidents so to speak...... it all makes much more sense.Lack of definite evidence? You can't be serious.

What happened to "Who says God needs to be proved with scientific evidence"?

eric1589

04-23-2009, 10:36 PM

but religion has no evidence, therefore it needs no evidence. thats why they call it FAITH.

we all KNOW d7 didnt switch from atheism to delusionism because of evidence. maybe he doesnt "know" this. but certainly anyone reading along can pick up the obvious...regardless of what he says.

Dolphan7

04-24-2009, 12:07 AM

Lack of definite evidence? You can't be serious.

What happened to "Who says God needs to be proved with scientific evidence"?God can't be proved with scientific evidence, but God's creation can. And there are tons of evidence that point to catastrophism just as much as uniformitarianism. There is tons of evidence of design in the universe, which science readily admits, it just doesn't associate that to a designer.

But I was referring to the lack of evidence for evolution, which does need to be proven scientifically. Yes yes I know you will say there are mountains of evidence and it is a proven fact. I've heard all that and if you read through the threads in this forum you will see that there really is no solid evidence for macro evolution.

Disagree with me all you want. I really don't care. You asked why I believe, I answered.

tylerdolphin

04-24-2009, 12:14 AM

And there are tons of evidence that point to catastrophism just as much as uniformitarianism. There is tons of evidence of design in the universe, which science readily admits, it just doesn't associate that to a designer.
Practically no scientists believe in a global flood.

Dolphan7

04-24-2009, 12:27 AM

Practically no scientists believe in a global flood.Sure there are. Lot's of them. I will admit there are more that don't admit a global flood, but that isn't because of lack of evidence, but because of bias within the scientific community. Remember there is funding at stake here.

tylerdolphin

04-24-2009, 12:37 AM

Sure there are. Lot's of them. I will admit there are more that don't admit a global flood, but that isn't because of lack of evidence, but because of bias within the scientific community. Remember there is funding at stake here.
I dont have anything to back it up, but Id venture to guess that less than 5% of scientists believe it. Your idea of scientific bias does not hold much water...scientists are always trying to disprove things. It helps their reputation. It is in a scientists best interests to prove a great flood to the world.

Dolphan7

04-24-2009, 12:53 AM

I dont have anything to back it up, but Id venture to guess that less than 5% of scientists believe it. Your idea of scientific bias does not hold much water...scientists are always trying to disprove things. It helps their reputation. It is in a scientists best interests to prove a great flood to the world.It is in a scientists best interest to prove a global flood? How so? Did you mean to say "disprove"?

If you want to assume that there is no bias in the scientific community, you can do that, but it is there. When I get a chance I will post some articles showing the bias clear as day. I haven't seen the movie but I hear that Ben Steins documentary hit on that very issue of bias in science. Take that for whatever it is worth.

tylerdolphin

04-24-2009, 12:57 AM

It is in a scientists best interest to prove a global flood? How so? Did you mean to say "disprove"?

If you want to assume that there is no bias in the scientific community, you can do that, but it is there. When I get a chance I will post some articles showing the bias clear as day. I haven't seen the movie but I hear that Ben Steins documentary hit on that very issue of bias in science. Take that for whatever it is worth.
I dont doubt that some are biased. What I am saying is that for a lot of other scientists, it would help them and their careers tremendously to disprove a widely held belief.

Dolphan7

04-24-2009, 01:07 AM

I dont doubt that some are biased. What I am saying is that for a lot of other scientists, it would help them and their careers tremendously to disprove a widely held belief.Which of the two beliefs are you referring to?

tylerdolphin

04-24-2009, 01:10 AM

The belief that there was no global flood

Dolphan7

04-24-2009, 01:25 AM

The belief that there was no global floodI thought so. You just demonstrated the bias I am referring to.

See this is how it works. Teach our children about millions and millions of years to accomplish earth's growth. Those kids turn into adults with this belief ingrained into the conscience, almost from birth. They become scientists. They begin to research in a particular field of study, with their pre-supposition and bias intact. They spend their time, and the university money, researching and discovering evidence that supports their bias. They make some progress, they publish, they get a pat on the back...oh and more money to "finish the research". The only problem is that the evidence never really pans out. There is no smoking gun....and alot of the discovery is that there is incredible design everywhere we look.

I just think it is funny.

Dolphan7

04-24-2009, 01:26 AM

The belief that there was no global flood
One other thing. You said belief in no global flood. I don't know if you noticed you actually called it a belief.

tylerdolphin

04-24-2009, 01:37 AM

One other thing. You said belief in no global flood. I don't know if you noticed you actually called it a belief.
I dont think it is a belief, but other people do so thats what I called it.

tylerdolphin

04-24-2009, 01:37 AM

I thought so. You just demonstrated the bias I am referring to.

See this is how it works. Teach our children about millions and millions of years to accomplish earth's growth. Those kids turn into adults with this belief ingrained into the conscience, almost from birth. They become scientists. They begin to research in a particular field of study, with their pre-supposition and bias intact. They spend their time, and the university money, researching and discovering evidence that supports their bias. They make some progress, they publish, they get a pat on the back...oh and more money to "finish the research". The only problem is that the evidence never really pans out. There is no smoking gun....and alot of the discovery is that there is incredible design everywhere we look.

I just think it is funny.
How old do you think the Earth is?

Locke

04-24-2009, 01:51 AM

While I share the reasonings of aesop and eric, I think you both are being pretty rude towards D7 and his beliefs. We agnostics always complain about the close-mindedness of of the religious population, but you really should practice what you preach. I agree with you both on most everything you've said. I just think you could use a bit more tact when arguing with him. I did give you both reputation points for debating him though....

Marino613

04-24-2009, 01:58 AM

While I share the reasonings of aesop and eric, I think you both are being pretty rude towards D7 and his beliefs. We agnostics always complain about the close-mindedness of of the religious population, but you really should practice what you preach. I agree with you both on most everything you've said. I just think you could use a bit more tact when arguing with him. I did give you both reputation points for debating him though....

I agree, although I do see why there are frustrations on both sides of this. Personally, I have a few ground rules that I try to hold myself to, although I do get frustrated an perhaps don't always keep them myself.

1) Don't assume you know what someone else is thinking or feeling, especially considering this is an MB
2) Don't use ad hominem attacks to deligitimate someone's point
3) don't put words in peoples mouth
4) don't assume there is nothing you can learn from the person who you disagree with
5) don't dismiss points of view based on attributing a psychological motivation rather only address the content of the debate (e.g., religious people are all afraid, atheists are just angry, etc.)

I probably have more but not being a total ******* is usually a good thing to abide by.

tylerdolphin

04-24-2009, 02:03 AM

While I share the reasonings of aesop and eric, I think you both are being pretty rude towards D7 and his beliefs. We agnostics always complain about the close-mindedness of of the religious population, but you really should practice what you preach. I agree with you both on most everything you've said. I just think you could use a bit more tact when arguing with him. I did give you both reputation points for debating him though....
I agree. I try to be respectful of everyone, but sometimes I get a little out of hand. My apologies to you D7 if I have been a dick at times :hi5:

And no rep points for me Locke? Im devastated. Looks like I will just be "A jewel in the rough" forever :lol:

Wildbill3

04-24-2009, 09:15 AM

I think there is a great debate in this thread, I'd like to see it get back on track. Please refrain from anything that could be considered "personal."

DuderinoN703

04-24-2009, 09:29 AM

I thought so. You just demonstrated the bias I am referring to.

See this is how it works. Teach our children about millions and millions of years to accomplish earth's growth. Those kids turn into adults with this belief ingrained into the conscience, almost from birth. They become scientists. They begin to research in a particular field of study, with their pre-supposition and bias intact. They spend their time, and the university money, researching and discovering evidence that supports their bias. They make some progress, they publish, they get a pat on the back...oh and more money to "finish the research". The only problem is that the evidence never really pans out. There is no smoking gun....and alot of the discovery is that there is incredible design everywhere we look.

I just think it is funny.

So scientists not believing in God or any of that related subject matter is only b/c they are biased?

Locke

04-24-2009, 10:10 AM

I agree. I try to be respectful of everyone, but sometimes I get a little out of hand. My apologies to you D7 if I have been a dick at times :hi5:

And no rep points for me Locke? Im devastated. Looks like I will just be "A jewel in the rough" forever :lol:

:up:

Ask and thou shalt receive...

Dolphan7

04-24-2009, 10:51 AM

How old do you think the Earth is?I don't know. Everything I have studied tells me it is thousands, not billions. That is about as far as I can go. There is no way to accurately date the AOTE. I am ok with it being billions. Are you ok with it being thousands?

tylerdolphin

04-24-2009, 11:10 AM

:up:

Ask and thou shalt receive...
I am now a "glorious beacon of light" :woot:

tylerdolphin

04-24-2009, 11:11 AM

I don't know. Everything I have studied tells me it is thousands, not billions. That is about as far as I can go. There is no way to accurately date the AOTE. I am ok with it being billions. Are you ok with it being thousands?
If I thought the evidence showed that, then yes.

Dolphan7

04-24-2009, 11:16 AM

I agree. I try to be respectful of everyone, but sometimes I get a little out of hand. My apologies to you D7 if I have been a dick at times :hi5:

And no rep points for me Locke? Im devastated. Looks like I will just be "A jewel in the rough" forever :lol:I don't get the impression that you have been anything but respectful towards me. You ask what I feel are sincere questions, meaning you really are interested in the answers. I always try to answer those questions as best I can, and if I have come across as anything other than respectful then I too apologize to you or anyone else. Sometimes debates do get some added inflection of emotion, but for the most part I think this forum responds well to each other, but there are some exceptions to that of course.

I get your point of view, please don't miss that. I know where you guys are coming from, because I have been there before. I know that I look like someone who doesn't get it, but the reality is I do get it, otherwise.......

... if I didn't know what I believed in, if I didn't feel as strongly as I do about my Faith, you guys would have had me recanting a long time ago.
The simple fact is these debates sharpen my beliefs and hone my arguments all the more, so please keep the questions rolling in.

I respect the heck out of anyone who dares to post on such divisive issues as religion, science and politics.

Healthy and spirited debate is what makes this place so fun, and what this country is founded on.

Dolphan7

04-24-2009, 11:19 AM

While I share the reasonings of aesop and eric, I think you both are being pretty rude towards D7 and his beliefs. We agnostics always complain about the close-mindedness of of the religious population, but you really should practice what you preach. I agree with you both on most everything you've said. I just think you could use a bit more tact when arguing with him. I did give you both reputation points for debating him though....I feel the same way.
You're a stand up guy Locke. :up:

Dolphan7

04-24-2009, 11:35 AM

So scientists not believing in God or any of that related subject matter is only b/c they are biased?No I am not saying that. I know there are lot's of scientists who believe in millions of years of evolution and erosion and all that, who also believe in God, or a god or some form of deity, who are not Creationists. The bias I am referring to is the ingrained belief that earth is billions of years old and life is a product of millions of years of evolution. This is being taught to all our kids, who take that into the science lab and it creates a pre-supposition and an ingrained bias within the field of study. If you think science guys are totally objective you would be mistaken. To be fair.....Creationists also have a bias, some they were taught from childhood, some were learned later in life, and some as a result of scientific research. Intelligent design has many adherents in both secular and non-secular circles, although there are those who are afraid to readily admit it.

DuderinoN703

04-24-2009, 12:16 PM

No I am not saying that. I know there are lot's of scientists who believe in millions of years of evolution and erosion and all that, who also believe in God, or a god or some form of deity, who are not Creationists. The bias I am referring to is the ingrained belief that earth is billions of years old and life is a product of millions of years of evolution. This is being taught to all our kids, who take that into the science lab and it creates a pre-supposition and an ingrained bias within the field of study. If you think science guys are totally objective you would be mistaken. To be fair.....Creationists also have a bias, some they were taught from childhood, some were learned later in life, and some as a result of scientific research. Intelligent design has many adherents in both secular and non-secular circles, although there are those who are afraid to readily admit it.

Understood. I always appreciate the conversation we have here. It's certainly an intriguing subject matter :D

eric1589

04-25-2009, 12:51 AM

I thought so. You just demonstrated the bias I am referring to.

See this is how it works. Teach our children about millions and millions of years to accomplish earth's growth. Those kids turn into adults with this belief ingrained into the conscience, almost from birth. They become scientists. They begin to research in a particular field of study, with their pre-supposition and bias intact. They spend their time, and the university money, researching and discovering evidence that supports their bias. They make some progress, they publish, they get a pat on the back...oh and more money to "finish the research". The only problem is that the evidence never really pans out. There is no smoking gun....and alot of the discovery is that there is incredible design everywhere we look.

I just think it is funny.

i think its funny that you don't acknowledge that this is exactly what is done with religion. just imagine where religion would be by now if it wasn't forced upon children.

this has been done for hundreds, if not thousands of years as a tool of spreading religion. go back a few thousand years and think about how developed civilizations were. think about how easy it was to spread ideas and teachings back then. think about how nobody had the ability to research much of the stuff that we now know today, and doesn't agree with what we were told back then.

and by the way, there is absolutely ZERO evidence or discovery of design. making an assumption and attributing something to a designer is not evidence. its an opinion and a cop out.

it is suggesting a supernatural answer that can never be tested, therefore never proven or debunked. how little would we know today if we just made this assumption instead of continuing research and development of anything?

tylerdolphin

04-25-2009, 12:54 AM

i think its funny that you don't acknowledge that this is exactly what is done with religion. just imagine where religion would be by now if it wasn't forced upon children.

From D7:

Creationists also have a bias, some they were taught from childhood, some were learned later in life, and some as a result of scientific research.

Dolphan7

04-25-2009, 01:23 AM

:chuckle:

aesop

04-28-2009, 12:28 PM

God can't be proved with scientific evidence, but God's creation can. And there are tons of evidence that point to catastrophism just as much as uniformitarianism. There is tons of evidence of design in the universe, which science readily admits, it just doesn't associate that to a designer. Prove his creation with science. I'll step back for a second.

But I was referring to the lack of evidence for evolution, which does need to be proven scientifically. Yes yes I know you will say there are mountains of evidence and it is a proven fact. I've heard all that and if you read through the threads in this forum you will see that there really is no solid evidence for macro evolution.

Disagree with me all you want. I really don't care. You asked why I believe, I answered.There are so many scientific facts that point to evolution being correct, but I'm sure you've gone into this and heard my perspective before so I'll spare you. I will say, though, that the only real lack of proof is actually witnessing a species change in front of our eyes (which some might just see as a 'mutation').

What is the religious explanation for mutation, by the way? I'm curious.

tylerdolphin

04-29-2009, 12:23 AM

The whole swine flu thing is pretty curious if there is no evolution...

Dolphan7

04-29-2009, 12:49 PM

The whole swine flu thing is pretty curious if there is no evolution...I was hoping someone would pose the question.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_swine_flu_outbreak

The CDC has confirmed that U.S. cases were found to be made up of genetic elements from four different flu viruses – North American swine influenza, North American avian influenza, human influenza, and swine influenza virus typically found in Asia and Europe – "an unusually mongrelised (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongrelization) mix of genetic sequences."[52] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_swine_flu_outbreak#cite_note-NewSci-20090424-pandemic-51) Pigs have been shown to act as a potential "mixing vessel" in which reassortment can occur between flu viruses of several species.[84] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_swine_flu_outbreak#cite_note-83)[85] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_swine_flu_outbreak#cite_note-84) This new strain appears to be a result of the reassortment of two swine influenza (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swine_influenza) viruses, which themselves are descended from previous reassortments in pigs.[86] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_swine_flu_outbreak#cite_note-85) Influenza viruses readily undergo reassortment because their genome is split between eight pieces of RNA (see Orthomyxoviridae (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthomyxoviridae)).Notice the use of the word "reassortment". Mixing and matching, copying errors, rearranging, duplicating, etc......simply show that genetic material is being moved around, but no new genetic material is being created. The former are examples of adaptation, the latter would be evolution if it ever happened. All we see is some combination of what was before it, not new information.

And there still is the possibility of this being the handiwork of man.

Dolphan7

04-29-2009, 01:15 PM

Prove his creation with science. I'll step back for a second.
There are so many scientific facts that point to evolution being correct, but I'm sure you've gone into this and heard my perspective before so I'll spare you. I will say, though, that the only real lack of proof is actually witnessing a species change in front of our eyes (which some might just see as a 'mutation').

What is the religious explanation for mutation, by the way? I'm curious.I view mutations in the exact same way modern science does.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation

In biology, mutations are changes to the nucleotide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleotide) sequence of the genetic material (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_material) of an organism. Mutations can be caused by copying errors in the genetic material during cell division (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_division), by exposure to ultraviolet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet) or ionizing radiation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionizing_radiation), chemical mutagens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutagen), or viruses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virus_%28biology%29), or can be induced by the organism, itself, by cellular processes such as hypermutation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somatic_hypermutation). In multicellular organisms with dedicated reproductive cells, mutations can be subdivided into germ line mutations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germline_mutation), which can be passed on to descendants through the reproductive cells, and somatic mutations, which involve cells outside the dedicated reproductive group and which are not usually transmitted to descendants. If the organism can reproduce asexually through mechanisms such as cuttings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cutting_%28plant%29) or budding (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budding) the distinction can become blurred. For example, plants can sometimes transmit somatic mutations to their descendants asexually or sexually where flower buds develop in somatically mutated parts of plants. A new mutation that was not inherited from either parent is called a de novo mutation. The source of the mutation is unrelated to the consequence, although the consequences are related to which cells are affected.No where does it ever state that new genetic information is being created, this is only assumed.

eric1589

04-29-2009, 02:44 PM

what "new genetic information" are you so hung up on with evolution?

ive read that its all a code. this rearranging is what causes the changes.

aesop

04-29-2009, 02:46 PM

I was hoping someone would pose the question.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_swine_flu_outbreak
Notice the use of the word "reassortment". Mixing and matching, copying errors, rearranging, duplicating, etc......simply show that genetic material is being moved around, but no new genetic material is being created. The former are examples of adaptation, the latter would be evolution if it ever happened. All we see is some combination of what was before it, not new information.

And there still is the possibility of this being the handiwork of man.As defined by Merriam Webster's Dictionary:

Adaptation: a change in structure, function, or form that improves the chance of survival for an animal or plant within a given environment

Evolution: a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations

Another common, weak counter-argument against evolution. Re-assortment? Mixing and matching and correcting errors? All of this is part of the theory of evolution.

aesop

04-29-2009, 02:49 PM

Oh, and Wikipedia is a user contributed encyclopedia. Wording on the pages should be taken with many grains of salt. In fact, I'll change it from "re-assorted" to "evolved" right now if it'll help.

Dolphan7

04-29-2009, 03:14 PM

As defined by Merriam Webster's Dictionary:

Adaptation: a change in structure, function, or form that improves the chance of survival for an animal or plant within a given environment

Evolution: a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations

Another common, weak counter-argument against evolution. Re-assortment? Mixing and matching and correcting errors? All of this is part of the theory of evolution.Evolutionary theory tends to state marcro-evolution as it's definition, but uses micro-evolution to prove it. Can't do that. No one denies that adaptation is real and we can see that, but you can't take adaptation, which is the re-arranging, copying, mutating, resorting, etc.....and create new genetic material through that process. Evolution demands that newly created genetic material is happening all the time and new creatures are developed through that process...over time. To date there is no evidence that any new genetic information has ever been created....in nature.....that didn't already exist before it.

Adaptation and micro-evolution is not evolution.

aesop

04-30-2009, 11:35 AM

Show me where you see them stating macro-evolution and use micro-evolution to prove it.

What difference does it make if there is 'new genetic material'? If it is rearranged to better suit the habitat, that is basically the theory of evolution.

390. Take that, rearrange it. 903. Completely different number. No longer an even number, almost 3 times the value. Rearranged. Re-assorted. I know it's a simplified way to show it, but I can't think of anything else this early in the morning. Point is, you can rearrange something with no new elements and have something completely different.

Dolphan7

04-30-2009, 12:06 PM

Show me where you see them stating macro-evolution and use micro-evolution to prove it.

What difference does it make if there is 'new genetic material'? If it is rearranged to better suit the habitat, that is basically the theory of evolution.

390. Take that, rearrange it. 903. Completely different number. No longer an even number, almost 3 times the value. Rearranged. Re-assorted. I know it's a simplified way to show it, but I can't think of anything else this early in the morning. Point is, you can rearrange something with no new elements and have something completely different.Show you where they state macro evolution and use micro evolution? LOL - You just did it in your simplified example.

If the numbers 390 and 903 are part of an organism, after all the reshuffling and rearranging etc.....they are still considered the same organism. That isn't macro evolution. That is micro evolution, it is adaptation.

Secondly - the numbers you chose "0", "3" and "9".....already exist in the number 390. Moving them around into the number 903 isn't creating a new number, but is rearranging the same pre-existing numbers into a modified or adapted, or in many cases a harmful mutation of the copying/reshuffling, rearranging process.

This is what I have been trying to explain so thank you for choosing those numbers because they explain the difference between micro evolution and macro evolution to a tee.

Macro evolution = no new information (numbers) thus no new organism, thus no evolution from one species to the next or even from one genus to the next.

For macro evolution to work, you would need to take the number 390, reshuffle it and get a new number like 904. No matter how many times you reshuffle, rearrange resort etc.....you can't get the number 904 from the numbers 0, 3, and 9. It is impossible. As is macro evolution.

Make sense?

aesop

04-30-2009, 12:23 PM

If the numbers 390 and 903 are part of an organism, after all the reshuffling and rearranging etc.....they are still considered the same organism. That isn't macro evolution. That is micro evolution, it is adaptation.

Secondly - the numbers you chose "0", "3" and "9".....already exist in the number 390. Moving them around into the number 903 isn't creating a new number, but is rearranging the same pre-existing numbers into a modified or adapted, or in many cases a harmful mutation of the copying/reshuffling, rearranging process.I was asking for specific documentation on something you have read on evolution being described solely with micro evolution. You have been so caught up on 'new genetic information' and that you can't create something new out of the same things that are already present

You gotta be kidding me. If I asked you first if 903 and 390 are equal numbers, you would have said no. But because you saw the pool of numbers I select from, you say they are the same number? So let me just clear this up. It is your belief that the numbers 903 and 390 are equal because they have the same symbols in them. So how about this, I'll send you $390 through paypal, and you send me $903. All you'll have to do is just rearrange the money around a bit and you'll have the amount you sent me, right? You're caught up in something irrelevant.

I'm saying adaptation and evolution are essentially the same thing. But I believe the key to evolution is mutation.

Do you believe in natural selection?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse

Check out the horse. What do you explain this with?

Please don't say God put the fossils there to test our faith. Please.

aesop

04-30-2009, 12:31 PM

Macro-evolution is essentially micro-evolution over a much longer period of time. I'd like to see these readings you are referring to.

Dolphan7

04-30-2009, 12:51 PM

I was asking for specific documentation on something you have read on evolution being described solely with micro evolution. You have been so caught up on 'new genetic information' and that you can't create something new out of the same things that are already present

You gotta be kidding me. If I asked you first if 903 and 390 are equal numbers, you would have said no. But because you saw the pool of numbers I select from, you say they are the same number? So let me just clear this up. It is your belief that the numbers 903 and 390 are equal because they have the same symbols in them. So how about this, I'll send you $390 through paypal, and you send me $903. All you'll have to do is just rearrange the money around a bit and you'll have the amount you sent me, right? You're caught up in something irrelevant.

I'm saying adaptation and evolution are essentially the same thing. But I believe the key to evolution is mutation.

Do you believe in natural selection?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse

Check out the horse. What do you explain this with?

Please don't say God put the fossils there to test our faith. Please.You are thinking of the value of the numbers in a monetary sense. I am referring to the numbers as genes in an organism.

Let's use letters.

xyz

You start with xy and z, you shuffle them to get the letters xzy. New information? No. Same information, just reshuffled. In order for macro evolution to work you would need to shuffle xyz and get xyA. That would be macro evolution, but everyone knows that no matter how many times you shuffle xyz, you will never get xyA, ever.

I keep coming back to this because I feel you don't understand. I am not asking you to believe, but please understand what I am talking about at least.

I would be glad to answer your other questions once we get past this one item.

If you can't understand this overly simplified explanation of micro vs macro evolution, then I really can't answer your questions.

aesop

04-30-2009, 01:10 PM

But you are just talking about the theoretical numbers. It's a moot point, either way.

Microevolution is the occurrence of small-scale changes in allele frequencies in a population, over a few generations, also known as change at or below the species level.

Macroevolution is a scale of analysis of evolution in separated gene pools.

I don't think you even understand what the 2 words are scientifically defined as. One occurs over a few generations (micro) and one occurs over thousands of years (macro).

You're making up new definitions.

Dolphan7

04-30-2009, 02:19 PM

But you are just talking about the theoretical numbers. It's a moot point, either way.

Microevolution is the occurrence of small-scale changes in allele frequencies in a population, over a few generations, also known as change at or below the species level.

Macroevolution is a scale of analysis of evolution in separated gene pools.

I don't think you even understand what the 2 words are scientifically defined as. One occurs over a few generations (micro) and one occurs over thousands of years (macro).

You're making up new definitions.Oh I most certainly do understand the definitions, or what modern science has settled on for the time being.

What you are not understanding is that there is no evidence of macro evolution ever happening. All science can do is point to minor changes at or below the species level and claim that that is macro evolution. Every time I ask for or review any evidence of macro evolution.....It always ends up being micro evolution instead.

Species remain within species.

If macro evolution is true, we should be able to see species jump, or genus jump from one to another. We don't. It only exists in the minds of believers in the theory or in textbooks.

At the basic molecular level there has to be a mechanism that "creates" new genetic information. This is necessary in order for macro evolution to work. It must be able to create new information on a continual basis in order to create new features in the organism and eventually enough of these features will end up in a totally new species or genus or phylum or whatever. That is what the theory states. But it must be able to show that there is some mechanism at the cellular level that has the ability to create new information or instructions. It doesn't. All we see is the same pre-existing information being re-used, re-shuffled- re- arranged etc......We don't see new organisms evolving, and we certainly don't see any large scale changes that are necessary for it to work. And we should be seeing trillions of changes everywhere we look if we are to believe that all life on this planet evolved from some simple pre-single celled organism. It should be happening at an alarming rate. We should see it. We don't. All we see is minor changes "within" species. Nothing more.

A fruit fly is still a fruit fly, no matter how many wings it has.

A butterfly is still a butterfly no matter what color it's spots are.

Bacteria still remains bacteria no matter how resistant it becomes to drugs.

A lion will always breed another lion, not anything else.

To date there is no evidence of macro evolution ever happening, ever. It only exists in the minds of those who subscribe and believe in the theory, and in textbooks being fed to our children.

aesop

04-30-2009, 02:35 PM

http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2009/04/fig15_12-1.jpg

Micro and macro are the same. They just occur over different periods of time, as seen by the definitions. Once again, you are making up your own definition for it. No evidence cited.

No one is stating that a lizard is going to turn into a fruit fly in a million years. The lizard is going to evolve to better suit the habitats it lives in. Or 'adapt' as you like to call it. This is evolution!

Dolphan7

04-30-2009, 02:45 PM

http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2009/04/fig15_12-1.jpg

Micro and macro are the same. They just occur over different periods of time, as seen by the definitions. Once again, you are making up your own definition for it. No evidence cited.

No one is stating that a lizard is going to turn into a fruit fly in a million years. The lizard is going to evolve to better suit the habitats it lives in. Or 'adapt' as you like to call it. This is evolution!This is not evolution as science has defined it. If the lizard adapts over time it is still a lizard. Evolution demands that that lizard evolve into a snake or a alligator or something like that. There is no mechanism for that to happen. I am thinking you don't know what evolution is, you keep pointing to adaptation within species. This is exactly my point. You can't point to micro evolution and call it macro evolution.

Please post the link to the artwork you posted.

aesop

04-30-2009, 02:46 PM

http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2009/04/microevolution-1.png

The hierarchical relations between Macroevolution (Ma) and Microevolution (Mi), and the Environment (E). Mi consists of Organisms (O) and their Interactions (I) together with factors from the Environment. Examples A-G illustrate the levels of environmental influence:
Mutation caused by chemical, thermal or radioactive interference.
Heat shock on developing zygotes.
Local adaptation to a niche.
Climatological change causing migration.
Geographical isolation.
Environmental changes that cannot be adapted to for historical or developmental reasons (causing extinction).
Changes that affect speciation rates and type.

Macroevolution in single celled organisms: http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2009/04/evolutionvines-1.jpg

Macroevolution is just a lot of microevolution.

"Genes and developmental sequences are extremely modifiable, and to date no barrier has been found, nor any reason to suspect one exists. All modern biology accepts that Ma is possible, through biological processes. The question is, in what ways? And that is a matter for empirical investigation, which is ongoing, and through which we are learning new things."

This is not evolution as science has defined it. If the lizard adapts over time it is still a lizard. Evolution demands that that lizard evolve into a snake or a alligator or something like that. There is no mechanism for that to happen. I am thinking you don't know what evolution is, you keep pointing to adaptation within species. This is exactly my point. You can't point to micro evolution and call it macro evolution.

Please post the link to the artwork you posted.ev·o·lu·tion (v-lshn, v-)
n.
1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See Synonyms at development.
2.
a. The process of developing.
b. Gradual development.
3. Biology
a. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
b. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.

You have an incorrect definition of evolution.

aesop

04-30-2009, 02:49 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacroevolutionAnd...?

Dolphan7

04-30-2009, 02:50 PM

http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2009/04/microevolution-1.png

The hierarchical relations between Macroevolution (Ma) and Microevolution (Mi), and the Environment (E). Mi consists of Organisms (O) and their Interactions (I) together with factors from the Environment. Examples A-G illustrate the levels of environmental influence:
Mutation caused by chemical, thermal or radioactive interference.
Heat shock on developing zygotes.
Local adaptation to a niche.
Climatological change causing migration.
Geographical isolation.
Environmental changes that cannot be adapted to for historical or developmental reasons (causing extinction).
Changes that affect speciation rates and type.

Macroevolution in single celled organisms: http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2009/04/evolutionvines-1.jpg

Macroevolution is just a lot of microevolution.

"Genes and developmental sequences are extremely modifiable, and to date no barrier has been found, nor any reason to suspect one exists. All modern biology accepts that Ma is possible, through biological processes. The question is, in what ways? And that is a matter for empirical investigation, which is ongoing, and through which we are learning new things."

(Quoted from: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html#what )Hey I can post graphs and charts to explain whatever I want. That isn't proof. What you have posted is what is in textbooks and web pages, as a theory. We understand the theory, and how it looks on an artists sketchpad.